,  AGRIC.  DEPT, 


OF  THE 

OLLEGE  OF 


OLEOMARGARINE 


AND 


BDTTERINE. 


>4  />/?/>?  presentation  of  the  most  gigantic  swindle 
of  modern  times. 


PRICE,  25  CENTS. 


PUBLISHED  BY 

T.  L.  MCALPINE,  142  MADISON  STREET, 

NBW 


THE  JUD80N  PRINTING  COR.,   16  BEEKMAN  ST.,    N.  Y. 


[Copyright   1886,   by   TT.  1^.   IMcA.lpixie.1 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PAGE. 

INTRODUCTION  

HISTORY  OF  OLEOMARGARINE    -        -        -        -       -        --       -       --3 

MOVEMENTS  AGAINST  OLEOMARGARINE        - 4 

INGREDIENTS  USED  IN  ITS  MANUFACTURE       -                10 

EFFECTS  OF  NITRIC  ACID 

THE  EVASIONS  OF  THE  LAW     -                        J3 

DAMAGE  TO  THE  DAIRY  INTEREST                                                                -  J4 

DECLINE  IN  THE  PRICE  OF  BUTTER  17 

PATENTS  AND  METHODS  OF  MANUFACTURE 20 

OLEOMARGARINE  NOT  WHOLESOME                  ......  22 

RUINING  THE  EXPORT  TRADE 24 

WHAT  REPUTABLE  RETAILERS  SAY  26 
How  THE  EXECUTION  OF  THE  LAW  Is  OBSTRUCTED          - 

CONGRESSIONAL  ACTION -  32 

THE  LAWS  OF  THE  DIFFERENT  STATES 34 

ITS  DEMORALIZING  EFFECT  UPON  TRADE 36 

THURBER,  WHYLAND  &  Co.  ON  BOGUS  BUTTER 37 

CONVICTIONS  IN  NEW  YORK  AND  BROOKLYN 38 

WORK  OF' THE  DAIRY  DEPARTMENT    - 39 

IMPORTANT  DECISIONS        -  39 

EDITORIAL  COMMENTS •       -       •       •  4£ 


320940 


INTRODUCTORY, 


"  There  never  was,  nor  can  there  ever  be,  a  more  deliberate,  outrageous 
swindle  than  this  bogus  butter  business.  The  whole  scheme  was  conceived  in 
iniquity,  is  nurtured  by  commercial  moonshiners,  and  carried  into  execution  by 
desperate  men  who  are  careful  to  appeal  to  that  protection  which  our  laws 
wisely  throw  about  those  charged  with  crime,  in  order  that  the  innocent  may 
not  unjustly  suffer,  while  they  are  deliberately,  persistently,  and  willfully  violating 
the  law  and  profiting  by  the  perpetration  of  a  base  fraud  upon  the  people." 

These  words  were  used  by  State  Dairy  Commissioner  Brown,  of  New  York, 
and  none  could  have  been  chosen  to  express  more  succinctly  and  more 
pointedly  the  opinion  entertained  by  all  honest  citizens  on  the  dishonest  traffic 
in  oleomargarine  and  other  imitation  butter  by  unscrupulous  men  who  throw 
honesty  to  tne  winds  and  glory  in  the  wealth  obtained  through  fraud,  deceit, 
and  misrepresentation. 

This  little  book  is  designed  to  set  before  the  people  the  enormity  of  this 
abominable  traffic ;  the  laws  that  have  been  passed  or  are  in  contemplation  for 
its  prohibition  or  regulation;  the  decisions  of  the  courts  of  law;  the  movements 
that  have  been  set  on  foot  against  it  in  the  various  States  of  the  Union  ;  the 
injury  that  is  being  done  to  one  of  our  most  important  agricultural  interests  ; 
and  such  other  facts  as  may  fully  open  the  eyes  of  the  public  to  the  importance 
of  procuring  legislation  for  the  protection  of  honest  dairymen,  dealers  in  dairy 
products,  and  above  a41,  of  the  consumers.  It  is  made  up  from  a  series  of 
articles  printed  in  January  last  in  the  New  York  Star,  and  takes  in  all  important 
movements  for  the  much-needed  reform  throughout  the  country.  These  articles 
met  with  the  approval  of  many  of  the  leading  merchants  of  this  city,  and,  as  was 
evidenced  by  the  favorable  notice  taken  of  them  by  the  press  in  other  States  and 
cities,  were  well  received  everywhere  by  those  interested  in  this  important 
question. 

Inasmuch  as  the  fight  against  this  gigantic  swindle  is  only  now  assuming 
national  importance,  it  is  hoped  that  this  book  may  be  of  service  to  those  who 
are  interested  in  procuring  legislation  for  the  protection  not  only  of  their  own 
interests  but  of  the  public  health.  The  manufacture  of  this  imitation  butter  and 
its  sales  to  consumers  are  increasing  daily  (except  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
where  the  strict  enforcement  of  the  law  has  brought  about  a  reduction  of  about 
fifty  per  cent,  in  the  number  of  violations),  and  the  manufacturers,  grown  arrogant 
with  their  ill-gotten  wealth,  now  demand  that  the  product  of  their  factories  shall  be 
declared  a  legitimate  article  of  human  food.  Backed  by  unbounded  wealth  and 
aided  by  the  best  legal  talent  that  money  can  procure,  they  assail  all  our  legis- 
latures, and,  if  not  strenuously  resisted  by  the  people  themselves,  will  eventually 
succeed  in  effecting  their  desires.  They  claim  that  they  want  the  people  edu- 
cated so  that  they  will  appreciate  the  blessings  of  the  cheap  butter  they  afford 
them,  but  they  have  no  desire  that  that  education  shall  extend  to  an  exposure 
of  the  vile  materials  they  use  and  the  injurious  processes  they  employ.  So  far 
as  it  has  been  possible  to  obtain  them — for  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  is 
a  valuable  trade  secret — they  are  given  in  this  book,  and  if  consumers,  after 
reading  it,  are  content  to  spread  the  stuff  upon  their  bread,  they  may  consider 
themselves  educated  up  to  the  manufacturers'  point. 


Oleomargarine  and  Butterine. 


A  PLAIN  PKESENTATION  OF  THE  MOST  GIGANTIC  SWINDLE 

OF  MODEEN  TIMES.  ' 


HISTORY    OF    OLEOMARGARINE. 

OLEOMARGARINE,  the  basis  of  all  the  frauds  in  butter,  is  the  outcome  of  an  ingenious 
Frenchman's  notion  that  the  butter  diffused  through  the  milk  of  the  cow  is  due  to  the  absorp- 
tion of  the  animal's  fat.  Taking  some  minced  beef  suet,  a  few  fresh  sheeps' stomachs  cut 
into  small  pieces,  a  little  carbonate  of  potash  and  some  water,  this  Frenchman — Hippolyte 
Mege  by  name — subjected  the  mixture  to  a  heat  of  113  degrees  Fahrenheit;  and  so,  by  the 
action  of  pepsin  in  the  sheeps'  stomachs,  separated  the  fat  from  the  other  tissues.  By 
hydraulic  pressure  this  fat  was  again  separated  into  stearine  and  margarine  ;  and  putting  ten 
pounds  of  the  latter  into  a  churn  with  four  pints  of  milk,  three  pints  of  water,  a  little  annoto, 
Mege  succeeded  in  turning  out  a  compound  sufficiently  like  butter  to  pass  for  that  article,  its 
only  lack  being  the  golden  yellow  color  that  characterizes  all  good  butter. 

Whether  he  had  produced  a  deleterious  stuff  containing  the  germs  of  disease  and  of  all 
manner  of  loathsome  parasites,  as  one  set  of  scientific  experts  pronounced,  or  something  far 
more  wholesome  than  half  the  butter  in  the  market,  as  another  set  emphatically  declared,  was 
of  little  moment  to  the  discoverer,  so  long  as  the  thing  was  likely  to  prove  profitable.  He 
patented  his  process,  and  found  no  difficulty  in  selling  rights  to  handle  it  in  France,  England, 
Holland,  Germany,  and  the  United  States. 

The  sole  right  to  issue  license  for  the  making  of  oleomargarine  under  this  patent  now  lies, 
it  is  said,  with  the  American  Dairy  Company  (whose  dairies  are  all  fat-boiling  factories), 
which  has  issued  licenses  to  factories  in  Philadelphia,  Pittsburgh,  Baltimore,  Cincinnati,  New 
York,  New  Haven,  and  other  cities.  Several  parties  embarked  in  the  business  without  troub- 
ling themselves  about  paying  for  the  right  to  do  so,  but  the  bulk  of  the  trade  is  in  the  hands 
of  licensed  firms.  The  Commercial  Manufacturing  Company  of  New  York  had  the  lead  in 
this  business  for  several  years,  but  when  the  new  patents,  under  which  animal  fat  of  all  de- 
scriptions could  be  used,  began  to  come  into  operation,  it  was  found  that  material  more  fit  for 
the  soap  boiler  than  for  human  consumption  was  being  extensively  manufactured  into  butter, 
and  in  1882  the  company  abandoned  this  branch  of  their  business. 

The  Commercial  Manufacturing  Company  began  operations  in  1876,  and  their  trade  soon 
attained  considerable  proportions,  as  much  as  500,000  pounds  of  fat  per  week  having  been  con. 
verted  by  them  into  oleomargarine  in  a  single  week,  which,  at  the  rate  of  2^  pounds  of  fat  to 
i  pound  of  oil,  would  yield  200,000  pounds  of  oil  or  butter.  This  rate  of  production  was 
maintained  up  to  the  middle  of  1882,  when  it  fell  off,  owing  to  two  causes,  one  the  passage  of 
an  act  by  the  Legislature  of  New  York  directing  that  all  oleomargarine  should  be  branded 
with  its  true  name  and  forbidding  its  being  colored  to  resemble  butter,  and  the  other  the  gen- 
erally prevailing  low  prices  for  dairy  butter  at  that  time.  These  low  prices  rendered  the 
manufacture  of  sham  butter  unremunerative.  When  the  retail  price  of  genuine  butter  falls  be- 
low twenty-three  cents  a  pound  it  does  not  pay  to  make  the  imitation  product.  The  average 
wholesale  price  for  oleomargarine  up  to  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  act  was  thirteen 


4  OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE. 

cents  a  pound  for  the  oil  and  fifteen  cents  for  the  butter.  Since  that  time  it  has  sold 
as  low  as  eleven  cents,  and  now  rules  at  about  eleven  and  one-half  cents.  Last  summer  it 
sold  as  low  as  ten  cents  per  pound. 

In  a  report  prepared  in  1880  by  Mr.  Archibald,  British  Consul  at  this  port,  that  gentleman 
furnished  the  following  particulars  to  the  British  Board  of  Trade,  at  whose  request  the  report 
was  made : 

"During  the  past  two  years  the  quantity  of  fat  manufactured  into  oleomargarine  oil  and 
butter  by  the  Commercial  Manufacturing  Company  of  New  York  has  been  about  200,000 
pounds  a  week,  yielding  80,000  pounds  of  oil  and  butter.  Of  this  about  75  per  cent.,  or  60,- 
ooo  pounds,  was  the  oil  product,  oleomargarine,  all  of  which  was  exported  in  barrels  or 
tierces,  for  the  most  part  under  the  name  of  oleomargarine,  but  sometimes  as  butter  fat,  01 
simply  as  oil.  This  would  give  a  yearly  exportation  by  this  company  alone  of  about  3,000,- 
ooo  pounds.  But  it  is  estimated  that  nearly  an  equal  quantity  is  being  made  by  the  manufac- 
turers outside  of  New  York,  so  that  the  total  quantity  of  oleomargarine  exported  from  this 
port  may  be  stated  at  about  6,000,000  pounds  annually." 

Besides  this  quantity  of  oil  for  making  sham  butter,  a  large  quantity  of  the  butter  itself 
was  and  is  exported,  Great  Britain  coming  in  for  the  lion's  share  of  it.  Sometimes  it  is 
shipped  as  butter  fat,  oleomargarine,  or  butterine,  but  nearly  always  as  butter,  pure  and  sim- 
ple. An  effort  was  made  by  the  dealers  in  legitimate  dairy  products  to  prevail  upon  the  cus- 
toms' authorities  to  require  that  nothing  but  natural  butter  should  be  exported;  but  as  it  was 
impossible  to  inspect  and  test  all  the  shipments,  and  as  the  oleomargarine  interest  was  fully 
able  to  look  after  itself,  this  proved  unavailing,  and  from  that  time  to  this  the  compounds 
turned  out  by  the  oleomargarine  factories  have  found  their  way  in  ever-increasing  quantities. 
to  England  and  the  Continent.  All  of  the  export  bogus  butter  is  put  up  in  half  butts  or  fir- 
kins in  precisely  the  same  way  as  the  genuine  article,  or  made  up  into  pound  pots,  covered 
with  muslin  wrappers,  stamped  like  pure  butter  and  packed  in  boxes.  It  is  sold  every  day  in 
London  shops  at  from  ninepence  to  a  shilling  a  pound. 

The  great  bulk  of  the  oil  finds  its  way  to  Germany  and  Holland,  enabling  the  latter  coun- 
try to  keep  up  its  reputation  as  a  butter  market,  without  the  trouble  and  expense  of  keeping 
up  its  stock  of  cows.  The  heaviest  shipments  are  to  Rotterdam,  whence  the  oil  is  sent  to  a 
place  called  Oes,  where  it  is  mixed  with  a  certain  proportion  of  milk,  to  give  it  a  suspicion  of 
the  real  butter  taste,  then  colored  to  make  the  outward  resemblance  perfect,  aad  then  churned 
into  butterine.  This  the  thrifty  Hollanders  ship  to  France  and  England  to  be  sold  as  best 
Dutch  butter,  although  a  proportion  of  what  goes  to  France  finds  its  way  to  England  under 
the  guise  of  the  product  of  the  dairies  of  Normandy  and  Brittany,  side  by  side  with  tubs  of 
"  real  Irish  butter  "  hailing  from  the  self-same  factory  on  the  American  side  of  the  Atlantic* 

No  wonder  that  the  reputation  of  genuine  American  butter — than  which  the  world  pro- 
duces no  superior — should  suffer  in  foreign  lands  when  practices  like  these  prevail.  Every 
pound  of  the  sham  butter  that  is  sold  takes  the  place  of  a  pound  of  the  genuine  product  of  the 
dairy,  and  thus  the  dairy  products  of  the  United  States  are  brought  into  disrepute,  and  the 
foreign  demand,  instead  of  increasing  rapidly,  as  it  naturally  should,  is  daily  becoming 
smaller  and  smaller.  The  crime  of  the  traditional  Connecticut  Yankee  who  gloried  in  selling 
the  Britishers  wooden  nutmegs,  sinks  into  utter  insignificance  as  compared  with  this  monster 
swindle. 


MOVEMENTS  AGAINST  OLEOMARGARINE. 

Among  the  recent  movements  against  the  shameful  traffic  in  this  city  the  action  taken  by 
the  New  York  Retail  Grocers'  Union  was  most  significant.  This  body,  which  includes  among 
its  members  most  of  the  respectable  grocers  of  New  York,  has  definitely  put  itself  on  record 
as  encouraging  the  sale  of  all  pure  goods,  and  discouraging  and  endeavoring  in  all  legal 
ways  to  prevent  all  deceptions  that  are  or  may  be  practiced  on  customers  by  the  sale  of  imita- 


OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE.  5 

tion  or  impure  goods.  The  preamble  and  resolutions  passed  by  the  union  are  worthy  of  pub- 
lication in  full,  expressing  as  they  do  the  abhorence  by  honest  tradesmen  of  the  vile  practices 
now  in  vogue  by  certain  retailers.  They  read  as  follows  : 

"Whereas,  We  are  informed  that  the  laws  of  the  State  of  New  York  prohibit  the  sale  of  all 
imitations  of  butter  in  the  way  they  are  at  present  manufactured  .and  offered  for  sale,  and 

"Whereas,  The  sale  of  all  imitation  butter  has  been  a  detriment  to  the  legitimate  business 
of  the  retail  dealer,  inasmuch  as  that  it  has  been  a  constant  temptation  to  the  dealers  therein 
to  sell  it  for  butter;  and  that  such  fraudulent  sales  have  created  a  prejudice  and  fear  among  the 
consumers  in  regard  to  the  purchase  of  all  butter,  therefore  be  it 

"Resolved,  That  we  discourage  the  sale  of  all  imitations  of  butter  and  urge  all  our  members 
and  the  trade  in  general  not  to  handle  in  any  manner  or  form,  until  such  a  time  as  the  manu- 
facturers thereof  produce  and  offer  for  sale  to  us  an  article  that  will  be  distinct  in  appearance 
and  different  in  color  to  that  of  genuine  butter ;  that  will  be  free  from  all  temptation  to  fraud, 
and  that  will  be  manufactured  and  sold  to  us  in  strict  accordance  with  the  laws  of  this  State. 
And  be  it  further 

"Resolved,  That  we  most  respectfully  petition  the  State  Dairy  Commission  to  use  all  power 
that  is  conferred  upon  them  to  stop  the  fraudulent  sales  of  all  imitation  of  butter." 

The  war  against  oleomargarine  and  other  counterfeits  of  butter  is  spreading  rapidly  in 
nearly  all  the  States  of  the  Union,  and  everywhere  the  newspapers  teem  with  attacks  upon  the 
traffic.  In  those  States  which  are  provided  with  laws  prohibiting  or  regulating  the  sale  of  the 
product  the  officers  entrusted  with  their  enforcement  are  acting  with  increased  vigor ;  and  in 
the  States  which  are  not  so  blessed  combined  movements  among  dairymen  and  honest  dealers 
are  in  progress  to  secure  the  passage  of  necessary  legislation.  This  movement  has  become 
actually  national  in  its  importance,  for  no  less  than  three  measures  are  now  pending  in  Con- 
gress looking  to  a  suppression  of  the  fraud.  One  of  these  is  the  bill  introduced  by  Congress- 
man A.  J.  Hopkins  of  Illinois,  which  puts  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  and  kindred 
products  under  the  charge  of  the  Internal  Revenue  Department  and  imposes  a  tax  of  ten  cents 
upon  every  pound  manufactured.  The  others  are  somewhat  similar  in  character,  but  differ 
from  the  Hopkins  bill  in  the  amount  of  penalties  imposed  for  violation  of  their  provisions. 

There  can  be  no  question  that  the  passage  of  any  of  these  acts  will  be  bitterly  opposed  by 
the  oleomargarine  lobby  in  Washington,  which  is  by  no  means  a  weak  one,  but  as  the  subject 
is  one  of  the  most  vital  importance  to  an  agricultural  interest  that  is  second  to  none  in  the 
United  States,  and  as  their  passage  will  be  almost  universally  demanded  by  the  constituencies 
of  representatives  who  come  from  what  are  known  as  the  butter-producing  States,  the  issue  is 
not  doubtful.  The  recent  decisions  in  this  State  and  in  Pennsylvania  as  to  the  constitutional 
right  of  the  Legislature  to  enact  laws  which,  like  this,  are  designed  to  protect  public  health, 
Avill  no  doubt  have  great  influence  upon  the  minds  of  Congressmen,  as  they  have  already  had 
upon  the  judges  of  minor  courts. 

In  speaking  of  the  operations  of  his  department,  recently,  State  Dairy  Commissioner 
Brown,  of  New  York,  said  :  "  The  venders  and  dealers  in  bogus  butter  have  deliberately  and 
persistently  represented  in  every  possible  way  that  there  is  now  no  law  in  our  State  to  prevent 
the  open  manufacture  and  sale  of  these  adulterated  goods,  in  face  of  the  fact  set  forth  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  the  Marx  case,  that  there  are  several  unrepealed  statutes 
relating  to  this  subject,  beside  our  present  law,  which  the  court  more  than  intimates  is  opera- 
tive and  constitutional.  This,  it  is  claimed  by  them,  is  legitimate  and  honorable,  while  our 
•efforts  to  prevent  such  open  and  flagrant  violation  of  the  laws  of  the  State  are  characterized  as 
oppressive,  and  the  officers  and  agents  of  this  department  are  charged  with  the  grave  offense 
of  maliciously  persecuting  enterprising  people  engaged  in  legitimate  business.  This  sort  of 
^enterprise  loads  down  the  United  States  mails  with  circulars  addressed  to  the  citizens  of  States 


OLEOMARGARINE  AND   BUTTERINE. 

whose  laws  forbid  the' sale  of  these  bogus  goods,  urging  them  to  buy  and  deal  in  them,  and 
tempting  them  by  the  promise  of  abnormally  large  profits  to  violate  the  laws  of  their  own 
States  and  to  commit  a  crime  for  which  they  may  be  punished  by  fine  and  imprisonment.  The 
manufacturers  of  these  adulterated  goods  purposely  make  them  a  close  imitation  of  butter  in 
order  to  facilitate  gross  deception  ;  and  while  it  is  true  that  the  manufacturers  and  wholesalers 
generally  sell  the  goods  for  imitation  of  pure  dairy  butter,  they  know  perfectly  well  that  the 
retailers  are  going  to  sell  them  for  genuine,  and  they  know  also  that  were  it  not  for  the  fact 
that  the  retailer  can  and  will  sell  them  for  butter  these  goods  could  not  be  sold  at  all.  < 

"So  rapidly  has  this  deplorable  disposition  to  defy  law  in  order  to  make  money  been 
developed  and  strengthened  by  the  friends  of  this  slaughter-house  butter,  in  order  to  hinder 
us  in  our  work  and  prevent,  if  possible,  the  enforcement  of  our  present  statute,  that  a  large 
number  of  grocers  in  New  York  City  have  perfected  an  organization  to  resist  the  execution  of 
these  laws,  and  have  raised  a  fund  and  employed  attorneys  with  that  unworthy  object  in  view. 
Every  one  of  these  dealers,  when  he  leaves  the  store  at  the  close  of  the  day,  goes  home  for 
the  night  well  knowing  that  his  property  is  quite  secure  because  he  is  protected  by  the  laws  of 
this  great  State,  and  that  the  whole  power  of  the  commonwealth  is  pledged  to  protect  him 
and  his  property  against  all  who  would  do  him  harm.  And  yet  we  witness  to-day  the  startling 
and  shameful  spectacle  of  a  number  of  business  men,  so  called,  banding  themselves  together 
to  resist  the  laws  of  their  own  State,  upon  whose  protecting  care  they  so  confidently  and  com- 
pletely rely  for  all  that  makes  them  secure  in  their  property  and  safe  in  their  persons  and 
homes." 

In  Ohio  a  strong  movement  is  under  way  to  procure  the  passage  of  a  statute  by  which  a 
dairy  commission  shall  be  constituted  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  laws  already  in 
existence  against  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  fraudulent  dairy  products.  Last  autumn  the 
Ohio  Dairymen's  Protective  Association,  a  recently  formed  organization,  took  a  hand  in  the 
election,  and  in  several  counties  their  interest  was  sufficient  to  elect  members  of  the  Legisla- 
ture who  were  pledged  to  use  their  best  efforts  against  bogus  butter  and  its  allies. 

In  August  last  the  National  Dairymen's  Protective  Association,  formed  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
vising means  to  guard  the  agricultural  interest  against  the  frauds  that  bid  fair,  if  continued,  to 
ruin  them,  adopted  a  resolution  instructing  their  officers  to  issue  an  address  to  the  dairy  farmers 
of  America,  and  this  has  recently  been  published.  Its  terse  and  epigrammatic  statement  of  the 
evils  growing  out  of  the  nefarious  traffic  in  counterfeit  butter  are  well  worthy  of  reproduction 
here,  and  will  be  read  with  interest  not  only  by  the  farmers  to  whom  the  address  is  made, 
but  by  the  merchants  whose  interests  are  jeoparded  and  the  public  whose  health  is  endangered. 
The  address  says : 

"  For  ten  years  an  enemy  to  the  interests  of  butter  producers  has  been  steadily  gaining 
strength  by  fraud  and  deception,  until  the  natural  product  of  the  dairy  has  become  profitless 
and  ruin  threatens  an  industry  second  to  none  other  in  agriculture  and  the  equal  of  any  in  our 
national  economy.  Oleomargarine,  butterine,  suine,  and  other  compounds  fraudulently  sold 
under  the  name  of  butter  have  made  an  investment  in  land  and  cattle  of  over  $200,000,000 
devoted  to  dairy  purposes  and  an  annual  production  of  $500,000,000  per  year  almost  value- 
less, not  by  honest  competition,  but  by  deception  of  the  most  criminal  kind,  while  the  con- 
sumer has  been  swindled  correspondingly. 

"  Our  export  trade  in  butter  has  been  almost  ruined  by  the  prejudice  created  against  our 
product  in  the  foreign  markets  of  the  world.  Values  of  dairy  products  have  declined  more 
than  50  per  cent.,  and  what  would  be  a  profitable  industry  under  natural  conditions  has  become 
a  losing  trade.  Through  the  paralyzation  of  this  great  industry,  all  others  in  America  suffer 
in  sympathy. 

"  Those  who  are  the  cause  of  this  loss  and  injury  to  the  farmers  of  America  and  the  com- 
merce of  the  country  are  enemies  of  the  public  weal.  They  not  only  wrong  the  producer  of 
legitimate  butter,  but  impose  upon  the  consumer.  Were  their  products  sold  honestly  for 
what  they  are  the  wrong  would  be  great  enough,  but  marketed  under  the  name  of  butter,  at 
prices  far  below  what  a  genuine  article  can  be  procured  for,  consumers  are  hoodwinked  into- 


OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE.  7 

buying  it,  and  the  genuine  article  suffers.  The  consumer  gets  an  inferior  article  and  the 
farmer  has  his  product  on  his  hands;  it  is  counterfeiting  of  the  most  damnable  kind,  and  with 
the  sa  m  disastrous  results  as  circulating  imitations  of  money  entail,  only  in  this  case  capital 
and  respectability,  and  want  of  proper  laws,  enable  the  fraudulent  butter  manufacturer  and 
dealer  to  ply  their  vocation  unmolested. 

"State  legislation  has  failed,  laws  badly  framed  have  been  passed  only  to  be  declared  un- 
constitutional in  the-  end,  while  not  capable  if  valid  to  accomplish  the  end;  for  if  driven  out 
of  one  store  the  enemy  only  moves  into  another  to  ply  his  vocation. 

"  National  legislation  is  necessary,  and  can  alone  be  effective,  or  the  dairy  industry  will  be 
completely  ruined.  Congress  must  be  appealed  to  and  men  elected  to  Congress  who  will 
vote  for  such  laws  as  may  be  necessary.  It  is  therefore  recommended  that  the  dairy  farmers 
in  every  district  in  the  United  States  meet  and  organize  on  this  movement;  this  the  greatest 
of  all  others  now. 

"The  tariff,  civil  service  reform,  and  all  other  questions  sink  into  insignificance  as  com- 
pared with  this,  for  it  concerns  the  pockets  of  every  man  owning  any  part  of  the  18,000,000  milk 
cows  in  the  United  States.  Organize,  then,  and  elect  men  to  Congress  the  coming  year  who  will 
represent  your  interests,  and  let  the  agitation  be  carried  on  until  every  counterfeit  butter  estar- 
jishment  in  the  country  is  closed.  In  the  mean  time  agitate  the  question  among  your  friends 
and  neighbors.  Not  a  moment  is  to  be  lost.  Encouraged  by  their  success  your  enemies  grow 
bolder  and  increase  their  wrong- doing. 

"Factories  for  the  manufacture  of  the  bogus  article  are  springing  up  daily.  It  will  take 
the  most  strenuous  efforts  to  hold  out  against  them  until  relief  can  be  had.  The  imposition  is 
the  grossest  ever  practiced  against  a  people;  7,000,000  farmers  are  left  to  suffer  from  the  dis- 
honesty of  a  few  manufacturers.  The  Revolution  was  fought  for  less  cause  when  the  popula- 
tion was  less  than  half  that  number.  Rouse,  then,  and  demand  by  the  majesty  of  right  the 
suppression  of  this  wrong,  and  your  voice  will  be  heard  and  heeded.  Organize  to  do  it,  and 
when,  as  farmers  of  America,  you  have  taught  one  band  of  robbers  that  you  can  protect  your- 
selves, others  who  would  rob  you  of  your  rights  and  property  will  begin  to  fear  your  ven- 
geance, and  cease  their  robbery. 

"  Already  the  cause  for  which  our  association  was  organized  has  spread  and  gained  strength. 
The  agricultural  press  in  different  parts  of  the  country  has  taken  up  the  fight,  and  speakers 
and  writers  in  all  sections  have  begun  to  agitate  in  your  behalf  since  our  movement  began. 
Let  the  work  continue  until  every  pen  and  every  press  and  every  platform  sounds  the  note  of 
warning  and  comes  to  your  aid.  A  convention  for  the  discussion  of  means  and  measures  will  be 
held  at  the  Grand  Central  Hotel,  New  York,  Friday,  February  16-18,  1886,  in  connection 
with  the  American  Agricultural  Association.  Every  one  interested  in  the  subject  and  every 
producer  and  dealer  in  butter  is  requested  to  attend." 

While  dairymen  and  lovers  of  legitimate  trade  are  moving  for  reform  the  oleomargarine 
men  are  not  backward  in  urging  their  claims.  The  following  from  The  New  York  Star  of 
January  3,  1886,  will  prove  of  interest  in  this  connection: 

"The  recent  agitation  of  the  bogus  butter  swindle  by  The  Star  has  had  the  double  effect 
of  awaking  the  public  to  a  realization  of  the  importance  of  the  interests  involved,  and  of 
prompting  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers  to  renew  their  efforts  to  have  their  product  recog- 
nized by  the  State  Legislature  as  a  legitimate  article  of  food.  Backed  by  practically  unlimited 
capital  and  advised  by  the  best  legal  talent  obtainable,  they  are  prepared  to  enter  upon  a  new 
campaign  in  Albany  this  winter  which  bids  fair  to  be  the  most  active  on  record.  It  is  learned 
from  a  trustworthy  source  that  they  will  endeavor  by  every  means  in  their  power  to  engraft  a 
provision  upon  the  present  law  removing  the  prohibition  to  the  use  of  coloring  matter  in 
oleomargarine  and  butterine.  They  will  urge  that  this  prohibition  is  unconstitutional,  for  the 
reason  that  many  legitimate  dairymen  use  annoto  and  other  materials  to  color  their  butter  at 
certain  seasons  of  the  year,  and  that  it  is  manifestly  an  injustice  to  prohibit  their  use  by  others. 
These  gentlemen  forget  that,  even  if  they  procure  the  desired  change  in  this  law,  there  will 
still  exist  to  their  detriment  certain  sections  of  the  Criminal  Code,  one  of  which  makes  it  a 


8  OLEOMARGARINE  AND    BUTTERINE. 

misdemeanor  to  manufacture  or  to  offer  for  sale  for  human  food  any  snbstaitces  in  imitation  ol 
such  food  products,  while  the  other  prohibits  the  sale  of  diluted  or  adulterated  foods,  unless 
the  seller  shall  first  inform  the  buyer  of  the  bogus  nature  of  the  articles.  They  will  hardly  go 
so  far,  unbounded  as  their  audacity  is,  as  to  demand  the  abolition  of  the  State  Dairy  Depart- 
ment, for  that  has  become  a  fixture;  and  as  long  as  this  exists,  and  is  managed  as  honestly 
and  efficiently  as  at  present,  the  dairy  interest  will  be  guarded  as  well  as  the  limited  funds 
allowed  the  department  will  permit." 

i  Mr.  William  H.  Coughtry,  president  of  the  Albany  Merchants'  Association,  which  includes 
most  of  the  grocers  and  other  business  men  of  that  city,  called  upon  President  C.  F.  Bussing, 
of  the  Retail  Grocers'  Union,  of  New  York,  recently,  and  suggested  the  expediency  of  an  or- 
ganized movement  on  the  part  of  the  combined  retail  grocers,  butter  dealers,  and  dairymen  of 
the  State  to  oppose  the  machinations  of  the  oleomargarine  interest  in  Albany.  Mr.  Coughtry 
declared  that  the  bogus  butter  lobby  in  the  Legislature  would  be  stronger  this  session  than 
ever  before,  and  that  strenuous  efforts  would  be  made  to  so  amend  the  laws  in  force  as  to  make 
them,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  inoperative.  He  said  he  thought  it  would  be  well  to  issue 
an  address  to  the  various  associations  of  grocers  throughout  the  State,  as  well  as  to  other 
traders  interested  in  the  suppression  of  the  vile  traffic,  urging  them  to  send  representatives  to 
Albany  to  protest  against  any  change  in  the  law  designed  to  favor  the  moonshine  butter.  The 
address  will  probably  appear  in  the  next  issue  of  the  Advocate^  the  organ  of  the  retail  grocers 
of  this  city,  and  President  Bussing  says  that  he  has  no  doubt  prompt  action  will  be  taken  by 
retailers  all  over  the  State.  This  movement,  in  conjunction  with  the  convention  which  is  to  be 
held  in  this  city  Feb.  16,  of  the  National  Dairymen's  Protective  Association,  will  serve  to  warn 
the  legislators  of  the  State  that  this  vital  and  important  question  is  not  to  be  trifled  with. 

In  the  meantime  the  movement  in  other  States  is  growing  stronger  and  more  widespread 
every  day.  Robert  M.  Littler,  the  secretary  of  the  National  Butter,  Cheese,  and  Egg  Asso- 
ciation, has  issued  an  address  to  producers  and  consumers  of  dairy  products,  in  which  he  takes 
the  ground  that  was  taken  last  year' in  Ohio,  and  brings  the  bogus  butter  question  into  the 
field  of  politics.  The  address  says  : 

"  Chemical  analysis  as  well  as  common  sense  shears  that  many  of  these  counterfeits  are  and 
must  be  unwholesome.  In  some  instances  the  process  and  material  for  deodorizing  the  lards 
and  fats  render  the  product  deadly  poison,  and  if  no  apparent  injury  arises  from  taking  these 
poisons  into  the  system  it  is  because  they  are  so  small  that  their  effects  are  not  immediately 
observable.  But  it  is  certain  their  continued  use  must  undermine  the  health  of  the  consumer 
and  result  in  fatal  disease. 

"  Further,  in  addition  to  the  amount  of  dairy  gtxds  displaced  by  the  counterfeit,  the  suspi- 
cion cast  upon  all  dairy  goods  by  the  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  these  frauds  has  sickened 
the  public  stomach  and  discouraged  consumption  to  an  extent  which  we  have  no  means  of  esti- 
mating. To  these  facts  we  have  the  right  to  largely  attribute  the  depressed  condition  of  the 
dairy  interest  of  this  country  during  the  past  year,  and  reason  to  fear  the  great  injury  if  not 
utter  destruction  of  the  dairy  interest,  which  has  hitherto  been  so  remunerative,  and  which  is 
second  to  no  other  national  industry  in  point  of  public  importance  and  financial  investment. 

"  In  view  of  these  facts  and  this  threatening  danger,  what  are  the  farmers,  dairymen, 
creamerymen,  and  consumers  prepared  to  do  ?  Will  they  adopt  measures  to  protect  them- 
selves against  fraud,  robbery,  and  imposition,  or  will  they  let  these  counterfeiters  have  full 
sway  and  ruin  a  leading  industry,  bringing  upon  the  community  at  large  all  the  dire  conse- 
quences of  such  ruin  ? 

"It  is  already  demonstrated  that  imitations,  Counterfeits,  arid  frauds  can  be  legally  sup- 
pressed by  appropriate  legislation,  provided  people  will  rise  in  their  might  and  demand  the 
necessary  measures.  All  that  is  needed  is  a  healthy  public  sentiment  manifested  through  the 
ballot  box,  to  afford  an  effectual  remedy  and  future  preventive  of  the  evils  which  now  con- 
front us.  The  laws  of  the  land  punish  the  counterfeiter  of  money  with  State  prison.  Why  not 
the  counterfeiter  of  butter  or  other  food  ?  To  counterfeit  criminally  is  « to  make  something  seein 


OLEOMARGARINE  AND   BUTTERINE.  9 

to  be  what  it  is  not  for  pecuniary  gain. '  The  difference  is  in  the  degree  and  not  in  the  essence  of 
the  crime.  Both  are  crimes— crimes  against  the  community.  Both  make  something  seem  to 
be  what  it  is  not  for  gain. 

"The  challenge  is  defiantly  thrown  down  by  organized  capital  against  unorganized 
labor.  The  only  way  to  effectually  meet  it  is  by  State,  county,  and  town  organizations,  for  the 
purpose  of  electing  State  legislators  and  Congressmen  who  are  in  sympathy  with  the  people, 
;and  willing  in  their  behalf  to  confront  the  mercenary  hosts  of  the  counterfeiters.  Interrogate 
every  candidate  of  whatever  party,  and  of  all  parties,  and  cast  your  votes  for  none  who  are 
not  willing  to  squarely  pledge  themselves  to  vote  for  the  necessary  measures  to  suppress  and 
prevent  all  frauds  on  the  dairy.  Act  at  once.  If  your  State  Legislature  is  in  session,  circu- 
late a  petition  among  your  fellow-citizens,  and  have  these  frauds  upon  the  dairy  interest  at- 
tended to  by  State  legislation." 

Attached  to  the  address  is  a  form  of  petition  asking  tbr  Legislature,  first,  to  prohibit  by 
law  the  sale  of  butter  or  cheese  of  any  substance  not  the  unadulterated  product  of  pure  milk ; 
second,  to  enact  suitable  penalties  for  the  violation  thereof;  third,  to  appoint  a  Dairy  Com- 
missioner for  Iowa  charged  with  the  enforcement  of  the  law,  and  appropriate  ample  funds  for 
this  purpose.  This  petition  has  already  been  numerously  signed,  and  will  be  presented  at  the 
next  session  of  the  Legislature. 

Among  the  States  in  which  the  movement  against  oleomargarine  is  daily  gaining  strength, 
is  Minnesota,  where  the  sale  of  the  article  is  altogether  prohibited,  and  a  fine  ranging  from 
$100  to  $500  is  the  penalty  for  violating  the  law.  Here  the  manufacturers  are  making  persis- 
tent efforts  to  make  the  trade  and  the  public  believe  that  the  State  anti-butterine  kxw  is  uncon- 
stitutional, and  that  oleomargarine  is  a  healthful  food  and  product.  In  a  recent  communication 
to  the  Minneapolis  Evening  Journal,  Assistant  State  Dairy  Commissioner  H.  C.  Howard 
says,  over  his  own  signature : 

"  It  is  not  necessary  to  enumerate  any  of  the  names  of  the  countless  numbers  of  living  or- 
ganisms found  in  butterine  to  prove  its  deleterious  effects  on  health.  Last  spring  Mr.  Lambert, 
of  stall  20,  St.  Paul  city  market,  used  a  large  carving  knife  for  three  weeks  to  cut  butterine 
from  the  tub  as  he  sold  it,  and  the  acids  not  only  destroyed  the  silver  plating,  but  actually  ate 
into  the  steel  blade  of  the  knife  and  turned  it  black.  The  knife  can  be  seen  any  day  at  stall 
60,  city  market.  The  eating  of  butterine  made  of  the  above-named  materials  will  destroy  the 
•digestive  organs  of  the  stomach  and  cause  the  early  decay  of  the  teeth." 


A  letter  received  recently  by  a  dealer  in  legitimate  dairy  products  from  a  correspondent  in 
•Cincinnati  contains  some  interesting  facts  with  regard  to  oleomargarine  and  its  allied  com- 
pounds, and  the  legislation  demanded  in  Ohio  and  Iowa,  both  large  butter-producing  States. 
This  letter  gives  the  Cleveland  Leader  as  authority  for  the  assertion  that  a  phosphate  factory 
located  near  a  stock  yard  buys  animals  that  die  in  transit.  The  bodies,  it  says,  are  placed  in 
ovens  and  the  fat  extracted.  The  first  grade  of  the  fat  thus  extracted  is  sold  to  the  makers  of 
bogus  butter.  So  much  for  the  product  itself. 

As  to  the  legislation  in  Ohio,  the  letter  says  that  the  Ohio  Dairymen's  Protective  Associa- 
tion, formed  expressly  to  counteract  the  machinations  of  the  oleomargarine  men,  has  rapidly 
grown  in  numbers,  and  is  now  an  acknowledged  political  power.  Through  the  influence  and 
labors  of  this  association  several  members  of  the  Legislature  were  elected  last  fall  on  pledges 
that  they  would  use  their  best  efforts  to  suppress  the  traffic  in  bogus  butter.  Encouraged  by 
their  success  last  year,  the  dairymen,  who  feel  assured  of  the  support  of  all  lovers  of  fair  trade, 
will  redouble  their  efforts  in  this  direction  next  year,  and  have  hopes  of  electing  representatives 
who  will  see  that  their  interests  are  not  ruined  by  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  sham  butter. 
The  oleomargarine  interest  in  the  Ohio  Legislature  is  a  powerful  one,  so  powerful  indeed,  that 
dt  succeeded  last  year  in  procuring  an  amendment  to  the  law  providing  that  butter  made  of 
•"-pure  suet  or  oleomargarine,  oils  and  milk, "  could  be  made  and  sold.  This  effectually  de- 


IO  OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE. 

stroyed  the  effect  of  previous  legislation,  and  it  is  the  design  of  the  association  this  winter  to 
frame  a  law  modeled  after  that  of  New  York  (carefully  avoiding  those  features  whose  constitu- 
tionality has  been  contested)  and  appointing  a  commissioner  to  enforce  its  provisions. 

In  Iowa,  the  letter  says,  a  similar  movement  is  on  foot,  and  petitions  praying  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  dairy  commissioner  are  being  largely  signed  throughout  the  State.  In  other 
States  which  have  no  laws  bearing  particularly  upon  this  traffic,  an  effort  is  being  made  to 
press  their  passage,  and  the  dairymen  are  appealed  to  to  do  their  utmost  to  prevail  upon  their 
representatives  to  take  prompt  action. 


INGREDIENTS    USED    IN    OLEOMARGARINE. 

The  following  is  a  list,  taken  from  the  patents  recorded  in  the  Patent  Office  at  Wash- 
ington, of  the  ingredients  claimed  to  be  used  in  the  manufacture  of  this  article.  Manufac- 
turers deny  that  they  use  all  the  ingredients  named  in  these  patents,  but  it  is  certainly  not 
unfair  to  assume  that  when  they  mention  a  certain  ingredient  in  their  application  for  a  patent, 
as  necessary  for  its  making,  they  actually  use  it.  This  list  was  obtained  officially  from 
the  Patent  Office  by  Assistant  State  Dairy  Commissioner  Van  Valkenburgh  of  New  York. 

NITRIC  ACID,  DRY  BLOOD  ALBUMEN,  MUSTARD  SEED  OIL, 

SUGAR  OF  LEAD,  SALTPETRE,  BICARBONATE  OF  POTASH, 

SULPHATE  OF  LIME,  BORAX,  BORACIC  ACID, 

BENZOIC  ACID,  ORRIS  ROOT,  SALICYLIC  ACID, 

BUTYRIC  ACID,  BE-CARBONATE  OF  SODA,  COTTON  SEED  OIL, 

GLYCERINE,  CAPARIC  ACID,  ALUM, 

CAPSIC  ACID,  SULPHITE  OF  SODA,  Cows'  UDDERS, 

COMMERCIAL  SULPHURICACID, PEPSIN,  SAL  SODA, 

TALLOW,  LARD,  FARINACEOUS  FLOUR, 

BUTYRIC  ETHER,  CAUSTIC  POTASH,  CARBOLIC  ACID, 

CASTOR  OIL,  CHALK,  SLIPPERY  ELM  BARK, 

CAUL,  OIL  OF  SESAME  (or  benne)  OLIVE  OIL, 

GASTRIC  JUICE,  TURNIP  SEED  OIL,  BROMA  CHLORALUM, 

CURCUMINE,  OIL  OF  SWEET  ALMONDS,  OlL  OF  PEANUTS, 

CHLORATE  OF  POTASH,  STOMACH  OF  PIGS,  SHEEP,  SUGAR, 

PEROXIDE  OF  MAGNESIA,  OR  CALVES,  CAUSTIC  SODA. 

NITRATE  OF  SODA, 

It  is  not  sought  to  show  that  all  these  ingredients  are  used  in  any  single  process,  but  the 
fact  is  established  that  nitric  acid  is  used  in  all,  and  it  is  probable  that  the  other  acids  named 
are  employed  when  the  most  powerful  agents  are  necessary  for  deodorizing  putrid  or  diseased 
fats. 

Speaking  of  the  materials  used  under  these  processes,  State  Dairy  Commissioner  Brown 
said : 

"  Our  hearts  grow  warm  with  gratitude  deeply  stirred,  and  our  appreciation  of  virtue  is 
most  delicately  touched  as  we  contemplate  with  much  relief  and  great  comfort  the  consoling 
fact  that  some  of  these  patentees,  these  alleged  promoters  of  digestion  and  benefactors  of  our 
race,  have  considerately  determined  that  if  this  compound  of  acids  and  alkalies,  animal  facts 
and  other  stuff  must  be  pitched  into  the  human  stomach  as  an  article  of  food,  provision  shall 
be  made  against  the  danger  of  an  utter  collapse  of  all  the  vital  iorces  of  the  victim  by  the 
introduction  of  such  comparatively  wholesome  ingredients  as  gastric  juice  and  slippery  elm 
bark." 

The  publication  of  a  list  of  sixty  ingredients  named  in  the  various  patents  covering  the 


OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE.  II 

manufacture  of  oleomargarine  and  other  bogus  butter  raised  a  storm  of  indignation  among 
those  engaged  in  the  making  of  the  nefarious  compounds ;  and  the  organ  of  that  interest,  an, 
obscure  journal  that  has  little  patronage  save  among  the  manufacturers  of  an  article  that  is 
legally  excluded  from  the  markets  of  the  State,  indulges  in  gross  abuse  of  Assistant  State 
Dairy  Commissioner  Van  Valkenburgh.  That  gentleman,  in  speaking  of  the  article  said  : 

"  The  list  was  prepaicd  in  my  office,  and  under  my  personal  supervision.  It  was  made 
up  from  the  records  of  the  Patent  Office  in  Washington,  copies  of  which  were  forwarded  at 
my  request,  and  every  article  mentioned  in  that  list  appears  in  those  patents.  It  is  fair  to- 
presume  that  when  certain  articles  are  named  in  an  application  for  a  patent  as  essential  for  its 
perfection,  those  articles  will  be  used.  I  took  it  for  granted  that  all  the  drugs,  chemicals,  and 
foreign  substances  mentioned  in  these  patents  were  used.  If  not,  what  was  the  necessity  for 
mentioning  them?  In  preparing  my  list,  I  used  the  names  of  no  articles  that  did  not  appear 
on  the  Patent  Office  records.  In  sending  it  to  members  of  the  trade,  I  took  care  to  use 
the  words :  '  And  claimed  by  them  (the  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine)  to  be  used  in  the 
manufacture  of  oleomargarine  and  butterine.'  The  writer  of  the  article  in  the  organ  of  the 
bogus  butter  trade  goes  into  an  analysis  of  the  articles  mentioned  in  my  list,  and  essays  to 
prove  that  none  of  them  is  injurious  to  public  health,  but  fails  to  deny  specifically  the  use  of 
any  of  the  articles  used.  Some  he  sets  down  as  practically  useless,  and  others  as  too  expen- 
sive, but  he  does  not  say  that  they  are  not  used.  Still,  he  does  make  use  of  one  significant 
remark  that  is  worthy  of  mention.  He  says  :  *  The  seventeen  patentees,  if  a  number  of  the 
sixty  articles  mentioned  by  Mr.  Van  Valkenburgh  can  be  taken  as  evidence,  show  more  wis- 
dom than  he,  for  they  take  care  that  many  of  the  constituents  or  articles  used  cannot  be  recog- 
nized from  the  names  given  in  the  above  enumerated  list.' 

"  To  be  sure  they  do,  and  perhaps  it  was  just  as  well  for  them  that  the  articles  constituting 
their  product  could  not  be  recognized.  The  fact  is  that  these  people  see  that  their  counterfeit 
butter  is  doomed,  and  are  ready  to  resort  to  any  expedient  to  postpone  the  inevitable.  The 
writer  of  that  article  shows  that  some  of  the  drugs  mentioned  in  my  list  are  largely  and  bene- 
ficially used  as  curatives.  So  they  are.  I  am  ready  to  admit  that ;  but  then  the  question  is, 
Do  we  want  medicine  spread  upon  our  bread  and  served  at  every  meal  we  eat  ?  Salicylic  acid, , 
I  am  told,  is  good  for  the  rheumatism,  but  when  I  suffer  from  that  disease  do  I  need  to  go  to 
a  butter  tub  for  treatment  ?  I  should  add  that  on  my  list  I  was  careful  not  to  mention  any 
names,  and  also  to  explain  that  the  sixty  articles  covered  all  the  patents  and  were  not  to  be. 
considered  as>  being  conjointly  used  in  any  one  process." 


THE  EFFECT  OF  NITRIC  ACID. 

The  following  from  The  New  York  Star  of  January  25th,  1886,  is  worthy  of  presentation.' 
here  in  full : 

It  is  authoritatively  said  that  another  effort  is  to  be  made  this  winter  by  the  oleomargarine 
men  to  prove  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Legislature  of  this  State  that  the  butterine  and  other 
oleaginous  compounds  that  are  furnished  by  them  to  retailers,  who  sell  them  as  butter  to  con- 
sumers, in  violation  of  the  law,  are  wholesome.  In  view  of  the  digestive  and  microscopical' 
experiments  made  for  the  Dairy  Commissioner  by  Prof.  Clark,  of  Albany,  and  detailed  in  his 
report,  this  is  likely  to  prove  an  uphill  task.  Prof.  Clark  made  a  specialty  of  the  physiological: 
features  of  his  subject,  making  experiments  in  digestion  and  microscopical  investigations,  and* 
in  other  ways  showing  the  importance  of  public  health  of  a  thorough  knowledge  of  what  enters- 
into  any  food  product.  As  a  result  of  his  researches  he  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  oleo- 
margarine is  unwholesome  and  dangerous  to  health  for  four  reasons.  First,  because  it  is  in- 
digestible ;  second,  because  it  is  insoluble  when  made  from  animal  fats  ;  third,  that  it  is  liable- 
to  carry  the  germs  of  disease  into  the  human  system ;  and  fourth,  that  in  the  eagerness  o£T 
manufacturers  to  produce  their  spurious  compounds  cheaply  they  are  temp  ted.  to  use  ingredi- 
ents which  are  detrimental  to  the  health  of  the  consumer. 


72  OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE. 

In  connection  with  this  subject  the  evidence  given  before  'the  Senate  committee,  upon 
whose  report  the  law  of  1885  was  drafted,  is  interesting.  When  Dr.  H.  A.  Pooler,  president 
•of  the  Board  of  Health  in  Goshen,  Orange  County,  was  examined,  he  was  asked  what  nitric 
acid  was,  and  how  it  affected  the  human  system.  This  question  was  suggested  by  previous 
testimony  as  to  the  use  of  nitric  acid  in  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine.  Dr.  Pooler 
ireplied: 

"  Nitric  acid  is  produced  by  the  action  of  sulphuric  acid  upon  nitrate  of  potassa,  aoout 
•equal  parts ;  it  is  a  powerful  caustic ;  it  destroys  animal  tissue  rapidly  and  almost  irreparably 
'when  it  comes  in  contact  with  it ;  upon  animal  fat  it  destroys  the  tissue,  and  deodorizes  it  by 
'destroying  its  smell.  It  is  also  a  preservative,  in  a  measure.  Undoubtedly  substances  sub- 
mitted to  the  action  of  nitric  acid  would  not  be  decomposed  so  rapidly  as  those  which  had  not 
been  submitted  to  it ;  but  the  acid  would  affect  the  digestive  organs  very  seriously.  Upon 
the  human  stomach  it  is  a  deadly  poison  when  taken  in  overdoses.  When  taken  in  a  diluted 
form  not  sufficient  to  cause  death,  and,  taken  for  any  length  of  time,  it  produces  similar  effects 
to  that  of  mercury.  The  teeth  at  first  become  whiter,  afterwards  decay,  aud  then  become 
loose ;  it  stimulates  the  excessive  flow  of  secretion  and  poisons  the  system  generally.  Its 
"caustic  properties  are  so  great,  that  it  destroys  the  tissue  and  impairs  the  circulation.  Where 
a  person  loses  a  nail  from  it,  it  is  generally  because  of  the  accumulation  of  the  acid  around  the 
root  of  the  nail ;  it  cuts  off  the  circulation  which 'supplies  the  nail,  consequently  the  nail  will 
slough  off  for  want  of  proper  nourishment.  The  acid  has  to  be  diluted  in  order  to  be  safe  in 
any  degree  as  a  remedy.  In  its  pure  form  it  is  deadly." 

This  testimony  was  given  subsequent  to  that  of  Charles  Moses,  a  laborer  employed  in  a 
Grove  street  butterine  factory,  whose  duty  it  was  to  pack  the  finished  product  in  the  tubs.  He 
swore  that  in  the  performance  of  that  duty  one  of  his  finger  nails  was  eaten  off,  and  that  the 
stuff  eat  through  his  clothing  and  into  his  boots. 

"Would  it  be  wholesome  or  unwholesome  to  treat  any  dairy  product  with  nitric  acid  ?" 
Dr.  Pooler  was  asked. 

"  No,  sir."  he  replied.  "  I  think  it  would  be  injurious,  especially  so  if  applied  by  a  person 
who  was  not  acquainted  with  the  acid ;  in  fact,  I  think  it  would  be  very  dangerous.  No  matter 
how  minute  the  quantity  is,  continued  for  any  length  of  time  it  produces  an  irritation  of  the 
mucous  membrane  of  the  stomach,  which  is  only  alleviated  by  stopping  the  use  of  it,  and  then 
sometimes  the  recovery  is  very  slow.  I  do  not  think  this  man  Moses  will  ever  entirely  re- 
cover from  the  effects  of  it.  It  will  be  years,  in  any  event,  before  he  gets  it  out  of  his 
.system." 

Dr.  Elias  H.  Bailley,  inspector  and  chemist  of  the  Brooklyn  Board  of  Health,  being  asked 
whether  manufacturers  were  liable  to  get  impure  fat  or  lard,  replied : 

"  Yes,  especially  as  it  seems  to  me  one  great  danger  of  this  whole  manufacture  lies  in  the 
fact  that  I  have  known  farmers  having  the  hog  cholera  in  a  flock  of  hogs,  and  the  moment  a 
hog  is  attacked  with  the  cholera  the  farmer  kills  it,  or  if  it  dies,  he  tries  out  the  fat  and  sends 
the  lard  to  market.  I  have  seen  that  done  myself.  Of  course,  to  all  appearance,  the  lard 
is  just  as  good  as  fresh  lard,  and  if  deodorized  could  be  used  without  detection.  The  pro- 
cess of  deodorizing  would  not  kill  the  disease. 

"The  principal  reason  why  nitric  acid  is  used  by  the  manufacturers,"  this  witness  said, 
"  was  to  remove  the  peculiar  odor  of  the  lard,  which  distinguishes  one  fat  from  another,  that 
is  decomposed  by  the  nitric  acid,  which  also  bleaches  the  article  to  a  certain  extent.  I  hold 
hat  nitric  acid  is  a  powerful  poison.  Used  in  the  most  minute  quantities,  I  believe  it  will 
produce  serious  irritation." 

Inasmuch  as  prominent  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine  admitted  before  the  committee  that 
they  used  nitric  acid  in  the  processes  employed  by  them,  and  as  nitric  acid  appears  in  most 
of  the  formulas  for  manufacture  filed  in  the  Patent  Office  at  Washington,  it  is  fair  to  assume 
(that  this  deadly  poison  enters,  at  least  in  some  instances,  into  the  composition  of  counterfeit 
•butter.  There  can  be  no  question  that  the  decision  of  the  Senate  committee  was  influenced  to 


OLEOMARGARINE   AND    BUTTERINE.  .  TJ 

a  considerable  extent  by  this  consideration,  and  in  the  Albany  campaign  against  the  machina^ 
tions  of  the  bogus  butter  lobby  this  weapon  will  be  effectively  used. 


THE   EVASIONS   OF   THE   LAW. 

The  troubles  experienced  by  the  Dairy  Commissioners  of  the  States  having  laws  for  the 
prohibition  or  regulation  of  the  traffic  in  oleomargarine,  or  what  the  outspoken  Western  men 
denominate  "bull  butter,"  in  enforcing  those  laws,  have  been  more  than  doubled  by  the  hesi- 
tancy of  some  of  the  minor  courts  while  awaiting  decisions  from  higher  authorities.  This  has 
been  more  marked  in  New  York,  perhaps,  than-  in  any  other  State,  the  decision  in  the  Marx 
case  by  the  Court  of  Appeals  having  been  held  by  those  interested  in  bogus  butter  enterprises 
as  a  declaration  that  the  statute  was  unconstitutional.  They  forgot  that  there  were  provisions 
in  the  Penal  Code  covering  their  illegal  acts,  entirely  independent  of  what  is  known  as  the 
oleomargarine  law,  and  it  was  not  until  several  convictions  had  been  obtained  through  the 
prompt  action  of  the  Dairy  Commissioners  for  violations  of  the  law  in  the  lower  courts,  and 
sustained  by  the  Supreme  Court,  that  these  nefarious  traffickers  in  unwholesome  food  began 
to  fully  appreciate  the  dangers  of  their  position.  In  speaking  of  these  frequent  evasions  of 
the  law,  Mr.  J.  H.  Seymour,  said: 

' '  This  question  of  bogus  butter  is  one  that  involves  not  only  our  national  commercial 
honor,  but  the  health  of  our  people.  The  manufacturers  of  olemargarine,  butterine,  and  other 
mock  butters  are  possessed  of  immense  capital,  and  leave  no  stone  unturned  to  advance  their 
own  interests.  My  belief  is  that  Congress  has  the  power  to  pass  an  act  to  preserve  the  public 
health,  and  it  is  probably  on  this  ground  that  the  enactment  of  a  law  relative  to  the  manufac- 
ture and  sale  of  oleomargarine  will  be  asked.  The  trouble  about  the  State  laws  hitherto 
enacted  was  that  they  could  be  easily  evaded.  Thus,  when  the  law  directing  manufacturers 
to  stamp  each  package  with  the  name  of  the  product  it  contained  was  passed,  they  obeyed  it, 
of  course,  but  at  the  same  time  managed  to  practically  evade  it  by  stamping  the  word  "  oleo- 
margarine "  in  diminutive  letters  on  some  part  of  the  package  where  it  could  be  less 
readily  seen.  It  took  a  good  pair  of  eyes  to  read  this  inscription,  and  for  some  time  the  traffic 
went  on  uninterruptedly,  and  the  markets  were  flooded  with  cheap  bogus  butter.  The  next 
enactment  provided  that  each  package  should  be  branded  "  oleomargarine  "  in  Roman  letter's 
at  least  one  inch  long,  and  this,  and  the  public  agitation  as  to  the  wholesomeness  of  the  stuff, 
made  oleomargarine  very  unpopular  for  a  time.  Seeing  that  their  trade  was  being  injured,  the 
shrewd  manufacturers  changed  their  tactics  and  simultaneously  changed  the  name  of  their 
product,  dubbing  it  this  time  "butterine."  In  spite  of  the  new  name  it  was  the  same  old 
compound,  made  of  animal  fat  and  treated  with  strong  acids  and  coloring  ingredients  that  are 
dangerous  to  public  health. 

"  If  you  will  read  the  testimony  taken  belore  the  Legislative  Committee  you  will  see  that  in  no 
case  would  the  makers  of  oleomargarine  admit  that  in  the  processes  of  manufacture  the  fat  was 
subjected  to  a  temperature  of  over  120  degrees.  It  is  known  that  some  of  these  factories  use  the 
fat  of  diseased  animals,  and  chemists  hold  that  it  takes  212  degrees  Fahrenheit  to  destroy  the 
germs  of  disease  in  animal  matter.  Is  it  not  fair  to  conclude,  then,  that  where  the  fat  of  dis- 
eased animals  is  used  and  submitted  to  a  heat  of  120  degrees  or  less  that  the  germs  still  live  ? 
I  forgot  to  mention,  when  speaking  of  evasions  of  the  law,  one  interesting  fact,  and  that  was 
the  practice  that  was  adopted  by  the  ingenious  manufacturers  after  changing  the  name  of  their 
product  to  butterine.  They  complied  with  the  law  in  stamping  the  packages,  but  the  word 
"butter"  was  in  big  letters  and  the  terminal  "ine"  in  little  ones.  You  see  there  is  practi- 
cally no  end  to  their  ingenious  devices.  And  yet  they  claim  that  their  trade  is  legitimate,  and 
that  they  sell  their  wares  for  what  they  are.  If  this  is  true,  why  do  they  pack  their  bogus 
stuff  like  reputable  dairy  butter,  and  why  is  it  that  pots  of  oleomargarine  stamped  like  the 
best  brands  of  Philadelphia  butter  are  offered  for  sale  ? 


14  OLEOMARGARINE  AND   BUTTERINE. 

"  Not  long  ago  I  attended  a  convention  of  the  National  Butter,  Cheese,  and  Egg  Associa- 
tion in  Chicago,  at  which  Mr.  Stern,  who  represents  Armour  &  Co.,  of  that  city,  admitted 
before  a  committee  that  his  firm  sold  neutral  lard  to  creameries  in  the  West.  When  he  was 
asked  whether  the  firm  bought  butter  for  manufacturing  purposes  from  those  creameries,  he 
replied  naively;  '  No,  indeed;  we  buy  pure  butter,  as  we  prefer  to  do  our  own  mixing.'  He 
said  also  that  the  firm  colored  their  product  so  as  to  make  it  look  like  June  butter.  Now, 
neutral  lard  is  simply  lard  deodorized  so  that  it  has  neither  taste  nor  smell.  Take  5  or  10  per 
cent,  of  dairy  butter  and  mix  it  with  this  substance,  and  you  can  produce  a  butter  that  only  an 
expert  can  distinguish  from  the  genuine  dairy  product.  This  neutral  lard  is  heavily  shipped 
throughout  the  West,  and  there  can  be  no  question  that  much  bogus  butter  comes  into  the 
market  under  the  guise  of  the  genuine  article. 

"  The  injury  done  to  our  export  trade  and  to  our  reputation  abroad  as  an  honest-dealing 
nation  cannot  be  estimated.  The  frands  in  the  trade  have  become  so  glaring  that  the  German 
Government  has  taken  measures  to  prevent  them,  and  now  every  shipment  of  butter  to  Ger- 
many must  be  guaranteed.  In  other  words,  upon  its  arrival  it  is  subjected  to  analysis,  and  if 
not  found  pure,  it  is  rejected." 


DAMAGE    TO    THE    DAIRY   INTERESTS. 

With  regard  to  the  injury  done  to  the  dairy  interests  of  the  State  by  the  traffic  in  oleomar- 
garine, Commissioner  Brown  says : 

"  There  is  invested  in  the  dairy  business  of  this  State  more  than  $300, 000,000,  and  the  annual 
product  of  the  dairy  amounts  to  more  than  $600,000,000.  That  an  industry  of  such  magnitude 
as  this,  and  contributing  so  much  to  the  material  interests  of  our  State,  is  well  worthy  a  full, 
fair  share  of  the  care  and  attention  of  our  Legislature  cannot  be  gainsaid,  and  that  the  pro- 
ducts of  the  dairy  being  consumed  by  the  people  to  so  great  an  extent  as  an  article  of  food 
should  be  kept  pure  and  free  from  adulterations  of  all  sorts  will  not  be  disputed  by  any  one, 
saving  only  those  who  would  get  gain  by  imposing  a  fraud  upon  their  customers.  I  am  a 
resident  of  the  county  of  Oneida,  and  know  that  it  requires  a  much  larger  sum  to  maintain 
police  establishments  and  to  enforce  the  criminal  statutes  in  that  county  alone  than  was  appro- 
priated by  the  Legislature  to  carry  on  the  work  of  this  department.  It  will  be  readily  seen 
that  to  cover  the  entire  State  with  our  work,  and  to  give  to  each  dairy  county  and  to  every 
.section  of  the  State  that  care  and  attention  which  its  importance  demands  is  impossible,  and 
we  are  obliged  to  prosecute  our  work  at  such  points  within  the  State  as  will  result  in  the  ac- 
complishment of  that  which  promises  to  best  serve  the  interest  of  the  whole.  Our  appropria- 
tion is  $50,000.  This,  to  the  average  farmer,  seems  to  be  a  large  sum  of  money,  and  so  it  is, 
but  if,  for  instance,  we  had  at  our  disposal  $120,000,  which  would  enable  us  to  accomplish 
very  much  more  than  we  can  now,  the  tax  would  amount  to  about  four  cents  on  every  $1,000 
of  valuation.  To  raise  such  a  sum,  the  farmer  whose  farm  is  assessed  at  $5,000,  would  pay  a 
tax  of  twenty  cents.  Two  pounds  of  cheese  at  ten  cents  per  pound,  a  single  pound  of  fine, 
pure  creamery  cheese,  or  even  the  price  of  two  ten-cent  cigars  would  pay  his  tax." 

"  The  dairymen  of  New  York  are  not  the  only  ones  who  suffer  fro'm  this  nefarious  traffic," 
said  Assistant  State  Dairy  Commissioner  Van  Valkenburgh.  "In  all  parts  of  the  country 
oleomargarine  factories  are  in  full  blast,  and  the  annual  product  of  the  United  States  must  be 
at  least  50,000,000  pounds.  I  cannot  give  you  the  exact  figures  of  the  butter  trade  in  this  city, 
but  it  will  sufficiently  show  the  break  in  the  price  to  mention  that  while  we  have  handled  13,- 
000,000  more  pounds  of  butter  in  1885  than  we  did  in  1882,  we  have  received  less  for  it  by 
$3,500,000  than  we  did  in  that  year.  " 

New  York,  which  leads  all  the  States  in  the  matter  of  dairy  production,  is,  of  course,  the 
chief  sufferer ;  but  there  are  other  sections  where  the  abuses  of  the  nefarious  traffic  are  se- 
verely felt.  Hon.  W.  D.  Hoard,  President  of  the  Northwestern  Dairymen's  Association,  said 
recently : 


OLEOMARGARINE  AND   BUTTERINE.  15 

"The  batter  production  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  for  1884  was  38,000,000  pounds.  This 
would  amount  to  73,000  pounds  a  week.  We  have  lately  learned,  upon  what  we  deem  relia- 
ble authority,  that  a  certain  butter  color  manufacturer  in  the  West  has  a  standing  order  from  a 
single  butterine  factory  in  Chicago  for  three  barrels  of  color  a  week.  A  barrel  of  color  will  color 
75,000  pounds.  This  proves  that  the  single  factory  referred  to  is  making  each  week  three  times 
as  many  pounds  of  buttedne  as  the  State  of  Wisconsin  produces  of  butter  per  week.  We  have 
no  doubt  of  the  facts  of  the  case.  In  addition  let  it  be  remembered  that  this  is  only  one  fac- 
tory, while  there  are  sixteen  more  in  active  operation  in  Chicago.  Then  remember  that  in  all 
the  other  cities  of  the  Union  the  same  iniquity  is  going  on,  and  ask  yourself,  brother  farmer, 
if  it  is  not  about  time  to  stir  yourself  and  let  your  influence  be  felt.  Haven't  you  sat  in  dumb 
silence,  like  '  a  sheep  before  her  shearer,'  about  long  enough  ?  Look  at  the  capital  you  have 
involved.  The  production  of  milk  alone  in  the  United  States  amounts  annually  to  $900,- 
000,000,  and  the  milch  cows — saying  nothing  of  the  beef  interest — are  valued  at  $700,000,000. 
All  the  banking  capital  of  the  United  States  amounts  to  $656,000,000,  or  $44,000,000  less 
than  the  capital  invested  in  the  dairy  cows. 

"The  silver  production  is  only  $40,000,000.  Yet  the  farmers  will  sit  down  as  quiet  as 
mice,  while  the  silver  men  are  hounding  Congress  day  and  night.  The  remedy  is  a  simple 
one.  Write  to  your  Congressman,  and  ask  him  to  support  the  enactment  of  a  law  taxing  the 
counterfeit  stuff,  say  fifteen  cents  a  pound." 

"  There  is  great  elation  among  the  oleomargarine  men  of  Chicago,"  said  a  leading  butter 
merchant  of  that  city,  "  over  the  decision  of  the  State  Board  of  Agriculture  early  in  this 
month,  that  oleomargarine  and  butterine,  when  cleanly  and  properly  made,  and  properly 
labeled  and  sold  under  their  true  names,  are  wholesome  and  cheap  substitutes  for  butter, 
and  they  frankly  admitted  that  they  had  obtained  a  greater  concession  from  that  body  than 
they  had  ever  hoped  for.  But  while  the  manufacturers  are  elated,  the  legitimate  dealers,  who 
see  their  business  falling  off  day  by  day,  are  correspondingly  depressed.  One  of  these  told 
me  the  other  day,  that  although  he  had  contributed  liberally  to  the  fund  raised  to  defray  the 
expenses  of  a  vigorous  campaign  against  it,  he  had  about  given  up  the  fight.  He  declared 
that  although  he  did  not  want  to  do  it,  the  time  might  come  when  he  would  be  forced  to  han- 
dle the  sham  butter  or  quit  the  trade  altogether.  The  butterine  men  had  the  upper  hand,  he 
said,  and  were  making  over  2,000  tubs  a  day,  and  before  long  would  drive  natural  butter  out 
of  the  market.  This  is  an  utter  despondent  view  to  take  of  the  position,  and  is  not  shared  in, 
I  think,  by  the  majority  of  the  trade.  That  it  is  not  the  view  taken  by  President  H.  B. 
Curler,  President  of  the  Illinois  State  Dairymen's  Association  is  evidenced  by  what  he  said 
the  other  day :  '  I  expect  Illinois  will  be  the  last  State  to  get  herself  in  line.  The  butterine 
interest  is  heavy  in  Chicago,  but  we  must  do  all  we  can.  We  shall  win  the  battle  if  we  per- 
severe, for  we  have  the  people  with  us.' 

"  There  is  a  phase  of  the  oleomargarine  fight  in  Chicago  that  has  not  reached  New  York 
yet,  but  as  its  cleverness  is  apparent,  and  as  the  manufacturers  are  extremely  anxious  to  push 
the  sales  of  their  product  in  that  greatest  of  American  markets,  I  have  no  doubt  it  will  be 
adopted  there.  The  New  York  law  requires  that  oleomargarine  shall  be  sold  for  what  it  is, 
and  the  plan  adopted  by  certain  Chicago  dealers  might  be  adopted  with  profit  in  the  metropolis. 
They  show  their  customers  samples  of  low  grade,  rancid  dairy  butter,  offensive  both  to  taste 
and  smell,  side  by  side  with  the  bright-colored  product  of  the  factory,  and  say  :  '  Here  is  the 
dairy  butter,  and  there  is  the  artificial — take  your  choice.'  Naturally,  the  consumer  takes  the 
counterfeit  rather  than  the  genuine  article,  and  the  shrewd  dealer  pockets  a  clean  profit  of 
fifteen  cents  for  every  pound  he  sells. 

"  One  of  the  arguments  used  by  the  advocates  of  these  bogus  compounds  is  that  their 
manufacture  has  caused  a  marked  advance  in  the  price  of  prime  dairy  butter.  That  is  so  to  a 
certain  extent,  but  do  you  know  how  the  higher  prices  are  maintained  ?  I  can  tell  you.  They 
buy  up  the  best  brands  themselves,  and  use  them  in  infinitesimal  doses  for  flavoring  the  stuff 
they  foist  upon  the  public.  Good  butter,  which  not  long  ago  sold  for  fifteen  cents  a  pound  is 


16  OLEOMARGARINE  AND   BUTTERINE. 

now  selling  for  forty-one  cents,  and  the  butterine  men  went  out  to  Elgin,  famous  for  its  but- 
ter, last  week  and  boomed  the  price  up  to  its  present  figure.  Their  object  is  as  plain  as  the 
nose  on  your  face.  They  want  to  make  the  higher  grades  of  butter  so  costly  that  those  of 
moderate  means  will  be  compelled  to  use  their  imitation,  or  eat  their  bread  dry. 

"Then,  again,  they  decry  the  agitation  of  the  butter  question,  and  say  that  their  object  is 
to  educate  the  people  up  to  the  point  at  which  they  will  fully  appreciate  the  purity  and  whole- 
someness  of  their  filthy  product.  The  people,  they  claim,  would  be  glad  to  use  cheap  imita- 
tion butter  but  for  the  outcry  raised  by  sensational  newspapers  and  jealous  dairymen.  At  the 
same  time,  they  take  good  care  to  pack  their  butter  in  tubs  and  firkins  modeled  on  those  used 
by  legitimate  dairymen,  color  it  to  imitate  the  real  thing,  and  sell  it  to  retailers  who  they 
know  will  dispose  of  it  as  genuine  butter. 

"  The  depreciation  in  dairy  products  in  the  four  Western  States  that  are  noted  for  their 
butter,  caused  by  the  sales  of  this  unwholesome  stuff,  has  been  enormous.  In  Illinois,  Iowa, 
Wisconsin,  and  Minnesota  there  are  4,000,000  cows.  The  value  of  each  of  these  has  been  re- 
duced at  least  $10  by  butterine  and  kindred  counterfeits.  This  alone  represents  a  total  depre- 
ciation of  $40,000,000.  Throughout  these  States  the  rentals  of  dairy  lands  have  fallen  off 
fully  $i  an  acre  from  the  same  cause.  Do  you  suppose  that  the  farmer  is  recompensed  for 
these  immense  losses  by  the  increased  consumption  of  lard  and  tallow  in  the  manufacture  of 
these  imitations  ?  The  fact  is  that,  in  spite  of  the  great  consumption  of  lard  in  making  but- 
terine, hogs  are  cheaper  now  in  Chicago  than  they  have  ever  been  before." 

Dealers  in  legitimate  dairy  butter  claim  that  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  the  counterfeit 
product  is  doing  incalculable  damage  to  the  dairy  interests  of  the  country,  and  that  not  only 
does  it  injure  the  domestic  trade,  but  ruins  the  reputation  of  American  dairy  products  abroad 
and  thus  cuts  off  the  United  States  from  its  legitimate  share  in  the  export  trade.  As  an  in- 
stance of  this,  they  point  out  the  fact  that  England  annually  imports  $50,000,000  worth  of 
butter,  of  which  only  ten  per  cent.,  or  $5,000,000  worth,  comes  from  America.  Besides  this 
she  imports  $25,000,000  worth  of  cheese,  seventy-five  per  cent,  of  which  comes  from  coun- 
tries other  than  the  United  States.  The  exports  of  butter  from  the  United  States,  they  say,, 
amount  annually  to  about  28,000,000  pounds,  while  of  oleomargarine  there  are  exported  250- 
000,000  pounds.  But  for  the  exports  of  oleomargarine,  they  argue,  the  annual  exports  of 
butter  would  be  between  50,000,000  and  60,000,000  pounds,  for  American  butter  and  cheese 
are  equal  to  any  in  the  world.  Inasmuch  as  the  dairy  interests  of  the  country  nearly  equal 
in  value  the  other  agricultural  interests  combined,  these  merchants  hold  that  it  behooves 
our  government  to  take  such  action  as  will  effectually  prevent  injury  to  products  which  form 
so  large  and  so  essential  a  factor  in  our  national  prosperity. 

The  State  Legislature  of  1884  passed  an  act  to  prevent  deception  in  the  sale  of  dairy  pro- 
ducts and  to  preserve  the  public  health,  one  section  of  which  prohibited  the  manufacture  "  out 
of  any  oleaginous  product,  or  any  compound  of  the  same,  other  than  that  produced  from  un- 
adulterated milk,  or  of  cream  from  the  same,  any  article  designed  to  take  the  place  of  butter 
or  cheese  produced  from  pure  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  of  the  same,  or  to  sell,  or  offer 
for  sale,  the  same  as  an  article  of  food."  A  violation  of  this  section  was  declared  a  misde- 
meanor, and  was  punishable  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  $200  nor  more  than  $500,  or  not  less 
than  six  months,  nor  more  than  one  year's  imprisonment. 

A  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  declared  this  act  unconstitutional,  and  there  was  much 
jubilation  and  gun-firing  indulged  in  by  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers  in  celebration  of  the 
event.  But  they  counted  without  their  host.  The  first  law  totally  prohibited  the  sale  of  oleo 
margarine  as  butter,  but  at  the  last  session  of  the  Legislature  another  act  was  passed,  prohib- 
iting the  manufacture  or  sale  of  any  oleaginous  compound  when  made  in  imitation  or  sem- 
blance of  natural  or  dairy  butter.  This  knocked  their  legs  from  under  them,  and  it  is  not 
deemed  likely  that  any  court  in  the  land  can  be  found  to  declare  that  this  provision  is  uncon- 
stitutional. Under  this  act  the  fine  and  the  term  of  imprisonment  were  reduced.  ' 

There  has  been  considerable  bitterness  between  the  dairymen   of  Illinois  and  the  State 


OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE.  I/ 

Agricultural  Board  recently  because  the  latter  declined  to  join  in  the  movement  to  abolish  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  bogus  butter,  and  because  at  a  recent  fat-stock  show  the  butterine 
men  were  permitted  to  exhibit  their  product.  The  Agricultural  Board  took  the  ground  that 
the  manufacture  of  butterine  is  a  legal  business,  and  declared  that  they  could  not  discrimi- 
nate between  two  occupations,  both  being  legitimate.  It  was  in  vain  that  the  dairymen  pro- 
tested that  the  sales  of  the  bogus  butter  were  made  in  fraud  and  that  their  interests  were 
being  ruined  by  dishonest  means  and  not  by  honest  competition  ;  the  board  still  persisted 
in  holding  to  its  views.  It  seems  that  the  agitation  of  the  bogus  butter  question  has 
had  a  good  effect  upon  this  body,  for  at  a  recent  meeting  they  adopted  the  following  reso- 
lutions . 

•*'  Whereas,  The  State  Board  of  Agriculture  is  in  sympathy  with  every  effort  to  secure 
pure  and  wholesome  food  for  the  human  family  :  and, 

"  Whereas,  There  seems  to  be  at  present  no  adequate  protection  against  unwholesome  and 
deleterious  adulterations  of  dairy  products  afforded  by  law  ;  therefore,  be  it 

"  Resolved,  That  we  respectfully  request  Congress  to  enact  a  law  placing  all  dairy  pro- 
ducts and  all  imitations  of  or  substitutes  for  the  same  under  the  control  of  a  competent  gov- 
ernment inspector,  to  the  end  that  such  articles  shall  be  branded  and  sold  under  their  proper 
names  and  on  their  own  merits. 

"Resolved,  That  we  respectfully  direct  the  attention  of  Congress  to  the  unwholesome 
adulteration  of  other  food  products,  and  pray  for  proper  legislation  for  the  adequate  protec- 
tion of  the  people  from  the 


THE  DECLINE  IN  THE  PRICE  OF  BUTTER. 

The  following  from  The  New  York  Star  of  January  28,  1886,  is  a  lucid  presentation  of 
the  methods  pursued  by  oleomargarine  manufacturers  in  their  desperate  efforts  to  force  their 
vile  compounds  into  universal  use  : 

Of  the  many  arguments  used  by  the  advqcates  of  oleomargarine,  butterine.  and  other  fraudu- 
lent butter,  one  of  the  most  potent  has  been  that  the  introduction  of  the  bogus  in  competition 
with  the  genuine  article  has  advanced  the  market  price  of  the  latter  within  the  past  five  years. 
While  it  is  true  that  the  finest  'grades  of  creamery  butter,  such  as  the  Elgin  and  the  Darlington, 
sell  at  higher  figures  to-day  than  at  any  time  within  the  period  named,  the  product  of  the 
ordinary  dairy  farmer  has  not  maintained  its  standing  in  the  market.  It  is  true,  too,  that  there 
have  been  many  improvements  in  the  making  of  buttei  in  the  past  few  years  that  have 
enhanced  the  value  of  the  higher  grades,  but  to  claim  that  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomar- 
garine has  increased  the  price  of  butter  is  absurd,  since  every  pound  of  the  bogus  article  sold 
and  consumed  must  take  the  place  of  a  pound  of  the  genuine.  Hence  the  dairyman  has  been 
defrauded  out  of  his  legitimate  market,  while  the  consumer  has  saved  little  or  nothing  by  the 
purchase  of  the  counterfeit,  for  bogus  butters  are  sold  at  about  the  same  prices  as  natural  dairy 
butter,  and  he  has  eaten  a  substance  that  is  neither  pure  nor  wholesome. 

The  Elgin  creameries,  which  are  located  near  Chicago,  practically  fix  the  prices  for  butter 
throughout  the  country.  The  ruling  power  in  the  butter  market  is  the  Elgin  Board  of  Trade. 
The  prices  it  quotes  prevail  wherever  butter  is  sold,  and  hence  its  influence  is  not  to  be  under- 
estimated. The  following  letter,  which  appeared  in  a  recent  issue  of  the  Elgin  Courier,  is 
from  Mr.  L.  M.  Potter,  a  well-known  creamery  man,  correctly  sets  forth  the  situation  and 
shows  that,  while  the  Elgin  creameries  fix  the  price  for  butter,  the  butterine  men,  backed  by 
tremendous  capital,  practically  control  them.  Mr.  Potter  says  : 

"  During  the  late  discussion  before  the  State  Board  of  Agriculture  at  Springfield  on  the 
butterine  question,  one  of  the  advocates  of  the  interest  made  the  assertion  that  the  manufac- 
ture of  oleomargarine  and  butterine  enhanced  the  value  of  Elgin  creamery  butter,  and  was 
therefore  an  advantage  to  the  dairyman.  While,  as  is  well  known,  they  do  use  a  portion  of 


1 8  OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE. 

our  best  creamery  butter  in  their  manufacture,  yet,  when,  as  they  claim,  they  do  not  use  to 
exceed  40  per  cent  of  the  same  in  manufacturing  an  article  which  they  also  claim  to  be  nearly 
equal  to  our  best  brands,  all  of  which  goes  into  consumption  in  competition  with  or  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  our  genuine  goods,  their  arguments,  to  use  the  words  of  President  Landrigan,  are 
simply  non-debatable.  We  also  admit  that  they  do  at  .certain  times  and  on  special  occasions 
advance  prices  on  the  Elgin  Board  of  Trade ;  but  as  these  advantages  are  only  temporary, 
they  tend  to  demoralize  our  market,  and  are  invariably  followed  by  a  reaction.  We  claim  them 
to  be  injurious  instead  of  beneficial. 

"  In  support  of  this,  please  allow  us  to  cite  you  the  effect  at  Elgin  during  the  last  few 
weeks  :  Nov.  24  the  board  price  was  27  cents  ;  Dec.  I,  30  cents  ;  Dec.  8,  32  cents,  with  a 
good  healthy  legitimate  demand  from  the  dealers  in  New  York,  New  Orleans,  St.  Louis,  and 
other  cities  who  buy  our  goods  regularly  for  their  trade.  Dec.  15  there  were  orders  from  the 
above  dealers  for  all  offerings  at  or  about  35  cents.  At  this  date  one  of  the  most  prominent 
butterine  firms  of  Chicago,  through  their  agents  at  Elgin,  offered  and  bought  every  pound 
they  could  get  at  40  cents.  This  was  fully  4  cents  over  and  above  the  prices  of  any  other 
market,  and  they  doubtless  could  have  bought  every  ounce  of  butter  not  positively  contracted 
at  36  cents.  The  22d  the  same  parties  took  it  again  at  40  cents.  In  the  meantime  telegrams 
and  letters  were  being  received  by  our  factory  men  and  local  dealers  as  follows  :  *  Extreme 
high  prices  check  demand.  Ship  half  regular  order.'  '  If  prices  exceed — cents  ship  only — 
tubs.  Too  high  for  our  market.'  '  Owing  to  the  uncertainty  of  your  board  prices  omit  our 
three. weeks'  shipments.' 

"December  29  the  butterine  men  withdrew,  and  the  demand  being  almost  entirely  cut  off, 
as  above,  it  was  at  once  evident  there  must  be  a  decline;  but  our  local  dealers,  hoping  to  pre- 
vent a  general  break,  purchased  a  few  small  lots,  and  established  the  price  at  38  cents,  al- 
though it  proved  a  losing  speculation  to  them.  January  4  butterine  men  not  buying  and 
stocks  accumulating,  the  market  became  lifeless,  and  fell  back  to  32^  cents,  therefore  not 
only  causing  us  to  lose  an  apparent  benefit  we  had  derived,  but  also  a  stagnation  from  which  it 
will  take  weeks  to  recover,  if  at  all.  Neither  is  this  the  worst  feature  of  these  purchases.  Dealers 
in  large  cities,  not  knowing  the  cause  of  these  large  and  unreasonable  fluctuations,  accuse  us 
of  making  fictitious  prices,  and  threaten  to  withdraw  their  orders  entirely  from  this  market,  and 
some  have  already  done  so.  As  the  Elgin  Board  of  Trade  prices  govern  largely  during  the 
winter  months  those  of  all  the  leading  markets,  we  claim  the  objects  of  the  butterine  men 
were :  First,  to  advance  the  price  of  our  finest  creamery  butter  so  as  to  practically  place  it 
above  most  of  the  consumers  ;  second,  to  increase  the  demand  for  their  product,  and  enable 
them  to  obtain  better  prices  for  the  same." 

In  Colorado  there  is  a  law  regulating  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine,  and  State 
Dairy  Commissioner  Feldwisch  is  enforcing  it  vigorously.  The  penalty  for  a  violation  of  the 
law,  which  is  not  unlike  that  in  this  State,  is  a  fine  of  not  less  than  $50  nor  more  than  $500, 
and  imprisonment  for  not  more  than  one  year,  both  at  the  discretion  of  the  court.  He  has 
recently  brought  about  the  trial  of  several  dealers,  and  the  question  of  the  constitutionality  of 
the  law  will  probably  come  before  the  highest  court  of  the  State  within  a  short  time.  Dr. 
Headden,  the  State  chemist,  has  been  following  the  method  lately  adopted  by  Dr.  Taylor,  the 
microscopist  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  at  Washington,  and  recently  exhibited  the 
results  of  his  tests  to  the  State  Grange.  His  researches  show  that  beef  fat,  hog  fat,  and  but- 
ter fat  crystallize  in  different  forms.  When  placed  under  the  microscope  the  crystallization  of 
each  fat  gave  views  so  uniform  and  distinct  that  there  was  no  difficulty  in  deciding  on  the  kind 
of  fat.  The  molecules  of  butter  fat  clearly  showed  the  characteristic  St.  Andrew's  cross,  on 
what  looked  as  near  as  anything  like  a  half  blown  rose  in  miniature,  while  those  derived  from 
beef  fat  had  a  uniform  flaky  appearance,  somewhat  resembling  crystals  of  snow,  and  those 
derived  from  lard  were  more  like  stars  with  irregular  and  sharply  defined  spangles.  The 
tests  made  seem  to  be  so  certain  that  it  would  be  hard  to  overturn  them,  even  in  this  State, 
which  abounds  in  scientists  of  high  and  low  degree.  If  the  cases  ever  come  to  trial  on  the 


OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE.  19* 

merits  of  the  subject  and  the  proof  is  contested,  they  will  furnish  matter  of  great  interest  ta 
the  scientific  societies." 

Speaking  of  the  present  cheapness  of  oleomargarine,  Assistant  Dairy  Commissioner  Van 
Valkenburgh  said  :  "I  am  informed  that  within  the  past  ten  days  200  tubs  of  the  stuff  have  been 
sold  by  one  large  manufacturer  in  this  market  at  eight  cents  a  pound.  Inasmuch  as  the  tubs 
stand  him  in  about  one  cent  a  pound,  and  good  lard  costs  seven  cents  a  pound,  it  is  evident 
either  that  he  did  not  use  a  high-priced  lard  in  making  his  oil,  or  contented  himself  with  a 
very  small  profit. 

"A  favorite  argument  used  by  the  advocates  of  butter  substitutes  is  that  they  have  materially 
increased  the  price  of  the  higher  grades  of  dairy  and  creamery  butter,  and  the  impression 
sought  to  be  conveyed  is  that  consequently  the  traffic  in  these  counterfeits  has  been  a  benefit,, 
rather  than  an  injury,  to  the  dairy  interest.  That  this  is  untrue  is  conclusively  proved  by  the 
following  figures,  which  were  obtained  from  the  statistician  of  the  National  Butter,  Cheese, 
and  Egg  Association,  and  are  made  up  from  the  annual  reports  at  the  conventions  of  that 
body. 

"  For  the  year  ending  November  30,  1882,  the  sales  of  Eastern  butter,  made  in  this  city  at 
an  average  of  29^  cents  a  pound,  aggregated  44, 2 14, 900  pounds,  the  amount  received  being; 
$13,043,617.05;  the  sales  of  Western  butter,  which  averaged  28  cents  a  pound  for  that  year, 
aggregated  35,648,860,  and  brought  $9,981,617.  This  made  the  grand  total  of  sales  for  1882 
79,864,840  pounds,  and  the  grand  total  receipts  $23,025,234.05. 

"  In  1883  there  were  sold  44,804,060  pounds  of  Eastern,  at  an  average  of  26  cents  a  pound, 
and  46,743,850  pounds  of  Western  butter,  at  24  cents  a  pound,  the  receipts  for  the  former 
aggregating  $11,649,055.60,  and  those  for  the  latter  $10,978,524.  This  made  the  total  sales 
for  the  year  90,547,910  pounds,  and  the  total  receipts  in  money  $22,627,579.60. 

"  In  1884,  38,263, 620  pounds  of  Eastern  butter,  at  24^  cents  a  pound,  brought  $9,374,635.90, 
and  49,853,350  pounds  of  Western  butter,  at  22  cents  a  pound,  $10,967,737,  making  the  total, 
sales  88,117,170,  and  the  total  receipts  for  the  year  $20,342,392.90. 

"In  1885  Eastern  butter  averaged  22  cents  a  pound,  and  Western  butter  20  cents  a  pound, 
and  39,480,350  pounds  of  the  former  and  54,086,500  pounds  of  the  latter  were  sold.  Thiv 
shows  a  total  of  sales  of  93,566,850  pounds,  and  a  total  of  receipts  of  $19,502,977  for  the 
year. 

"  By  a  careful  comparison  of  these  figures  it  can  be  easily  seen  that  the  price  has  been 
steadily  falling,  Eastern  butter  declining  from  29^  cents  a  pound  in  1882  to  22  cents  in  1885. 
Thus,  while  the  butter  dealers  in  1885  handled  13,702,000  more  pounds  of  the  product  than 
they  did  in  1882,  they  received  in  money  $3,522,388.05  less.  It  should  be  remembered  that 
these  statistics  represent  the  trade  of  New  York  City  alone,  which  is  probably  not  more  than 
one-tenth  of  the  trade  of  the  United  States.  By  comparing  the  receipts  of  1882,  when  the 
total  sales  aggregated  79,864,840  pounds,  with  those  of  1883,  when  90,547,910  pounds  were 
sold,  there  will  be  found  a  difference  of  $1,397,715.45.  In  other  words,  the  dealers  handled 
10,683, 070  more  pounds  of  butter  in  1883  than  they  did  in  1882,  and  received  for  it  $1,397, 715. 45 
less.  In  the  succeeding  year  there  was  a  further  decline,  and  the  total  receipts  fell  off  from. 
$22,627,579.60  to  $20,342,372.90 — the  amount  handled  in  1884  being  2,430,740  pounds  less 
than  that  handled  in  1883." 

"Is  there  any  reason  to  doubt  that  these  results  have  been  brought  about  by  the  unholy 
traffic  in  oleomargarine,  butterine,  and  other  bogus  butters?"  said  a  leading  butter  merchant. 
"  If  you  will  inquire  among  reputable  retail  dealers,  you  will  find  that  nine  out  of  ten  of  the 
consumers  who  visit  their  stores  to  purchase  butter  ask  especially  as  to  its  genuineness.  You 
will  also  find  that  many  dealers  have  lost  a  certain  proportion  of  their  customers  through  the 
distrust  that  arises  in  the  public  mind  as  to  the  wholesomeness  and  genuineness  of  the  article 
offered  for  sale.  I  was  told  the  other  day  that  the  butter  trade  of  certain  well  known  and  long 
established  grocers,  who  are  known  to  value  their  reputation  too  highly  to  risk  it  by  dealing 
in  counterfeits  of  any  kind,  had  nearly  doubled  since  the  agitation  of  the  oleomarga-ine  ques- 


20  OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE. 

tion  began,  and  I  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  it  is  true.  The  imitations  are  so  cleverly  dis- 
guised, and  come  to  the  markets  in  tubs  and  firkins  so  exactly  modeled  after  those  used  by 
legitimate  dairymen,  that  housekeepers  are  careful  to  deal  only  with  establishments  that  are 
above  suspicion. 

"  I  have  seen  an  abstract  of  the  Dairy  Commissioner's  report,  in  which  he  says  that  scien- 
tific experiments  have  proved  conclusively  that  oleomargarine  is  indigestible,  and  much  less 
soluble  than  natural  butter.  If  this  be  true,  it  seems  to  me  that  future  legislation  on  the  sub- 
ject can  have  but  one  object — its  entire  prohibition.  I  do  not  think  that  any  court  has  yet 
decided  upon  the  question  as  to  whether  oleomargarine  is  wholesome  or  not,  and  I  hope  that 
this  issue  will  be  speedily  raised.  If  the  Legislature  or  Congress  takes  any  action  looking  to  a 
thorough  scientific  test,  I  would  suggest  that  care  be  taken,  in  procuring  samples  for  the  test, 
that  goods  already  on  the  market  for  sale  should  be  selected.  The  manufacturers  are  shrewd 
and  wily,  and  would  not  hesitate,  if  the  opportunity  offered,  to  furnish  specimens  of  their 
product  that  would  consist  very  largely  of  genuine  butter.  When  the  stuff  first  made  its 
appearance,  there  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  samples  were  sent  to  chemists  for  analysis 
that  had  been  especially  prepared  for  their  benefit.  Let  the  new  tests  be  made  on  the  product 
as  actually  sold." 

PATENTS   AND    METHODS    OF    MANUFACTURE. 

It  is  the  claim  of  the  manufacturers  of  sham  butter  that  the  product  they  foist  upon  a  too 
corrfiding  public  contains  no  ingredients  calculated  to  injure  the  public  health.  That  this 
claim  is  unfounded  may  be  plainly  seen  by  reference  to  the  appended  list  of  patents  for  oleo- 
margarine processes,  which  were  first  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  public  by  Commissioner 
of  Agriculture  Colman.  By  a  careful  perusal  of  these  it  will  be  seen  that  in  nearly  all  of 
these  patents  the  ingredients  are  animal  fat,  lactic  acid,  peanut  oil,  almond  oil,  olive  oil,  soda, 
pepsin,  cottonseed  oil,  slippery  elm  bark,  saltpetre,  borax,  coloring  matters  of  various  kinds, 
salicylic  acid,  benzoic  acid,  caustic  soda,  butyric  ether,  glycerine,  annoto,  orris  root,  sunflower 
oil,  and  other  equally  inviting  articles.  No  one  of  the  processes  contains  all  the  articles 
I  have  enumerated,  of  course;  but  I,  for  one,  would  not  knowingly  take  the  risk  of  eating 
any  one  of  them  on  my  bread.  If  there  is  no  other  ground  upon  which  restrictive  legislation 
could  be  based — such  is  the  damage  done  to  one  of  our  most  important  national  industries, 
and  to  our  national  reputation  abroad — the  preservation  of  the  public  health  from  the 
injurious  effects  of  such  articles  as  I  have  enumerated  should  be  of  itself  quite  sufficient. 

Here  are  some  of  the  patents  that  have  been  granted  within  the  past  ten  years,  as  shown 
"by  a  paper  read  by  Commissioner  Colman  before  the  National  Butter,  Cheese,  and  Egg  Asso- 
ciation in  Chicago  recently : 

In  1875  a  patent  was  granted  to  Garrett  Codine,  of  New  York,  for  a  method  of  making 
artificial  butter  from  sour  milk,  animal  fat,  lactic  acid,  peanut  oil,  almond  oil,  and  olive  oil ; 
also  to  John  P.  Kinney,  from  animal  fat,  soda  ash,  and  salt. 

Patent  to  Hippolyto  Mege,  1878.  Fats  of  all  animals  reduced  by  novel  methods  ;  oleo- 
margarine mixed  with  milk,  combined  with  bi-carbouate  of  soda  and  pepsin  from  prepared 
cows'  udders,  coloring  matter  added  and  churned. 

Patent  to  G.  H.  Webster,  Chicago,  111.,  1882.  Lard,  buttermilk,  tallow,  and  pepsin, 
mixed  with  half  its  weight  of  pure  butter,  then  worked  with  the  hands  until  attaining  the  con- 
sistency of  butter. 

Patent  to  S.  F.  Cochrane,  Massachusetts,  1882.  Compound  to  be  used  in  place  of  butter 
and  lard  for  cooking  purposes ;  "  gall  and  kidney  beef  suets,"  lard,  cottonseed  oil,  and  ground 
slippery  elm  bark. 

Patent  to  Alfred  Springer,  Cincinnati,  O.,  for  artificial  batter,  1877.  Method  of  treating 
animal  fats  by  mixing  with  salt,  saltpetre,  borax,  boracic  acid,  salicylic  acid,  and  benzoic  < 


OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE.  21 

Patent  to  Oscar  H.  Combe,  Washington,  D.  C,  1882.  Substitute  for  butter  called 
butteroid.  Cottonseed  oil  reduced  by  caustic  soda  emulsified  with  corn  starch,  previously 
cooked  and  seasoned  with  salt,  colored  and  flavored  with  butyric  ether. 

Patent  to  Oscar  H.  Combe,  Washington,  D.  C.,  for  substitute  for  lard  called  oleoard. 
This  process  is  similar  to  the  other,  being  a  mixture  of  cottonseed  oil  with  cooked  farinaceous 
flour. 

Patent  to  Hugo  Barthold,  New  York  City,  1882,  for  artificial  butter.  Composed  of  oleo  oil 
and  milk  churned,  sugar,  glycerine  and  annoto  added,  also  benne  oil. 

Patent  to  George  S.  Marshall,  Everett,  Mass.,  1882,  for  a  "compound  for  culinary  use." 
Composed  of  stearine,  vegetable  or  cottonseed  oil,  and  orris  root. 

Patent  to  Nathan  I.  Nathan,  New  York,  1882,  for  artificial  butter.  Made  of  leaf  lard, 
treated  with  a  solution  of  nitric  acid  and  borax,  afterwards  washed  with  cold  water.  The 
product  is  then  mixed  with  oleomargarine,  heated  to  95  degrees  Fahrenheit.  Milk  and  sugar 
are  then  added,  and  the  mass  churned.  It  is  then  refrigerated,  solidified,  salted,  and  prepared 
in  rolls  or  blocks  for  market. 

Patent  to  Otto  Boyson,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  1881,  for  substitute  for  butter.  Combination  of 
oleo  oil,  bi-carbonate  of  soda,  and  butyric  acid  ;  uses  no  milk. 

Patent  to  W.  H.  Burnet,  Chicago,  111.,  1882,  relates  to  improvements  in  artificial  products 
resembling  and  intended  to  take  the  place  of  butter.  Ingredients— hogs'  lard,  beef  suet, 
cjeam,  butter  and  glycerine,  salt  and  coloring  matter,  glycerine  being  employed  to  give  and 
retain  sweetness  to  the  product,  and  at  the  same  time  giving  greater  coherence  to  the  body 
with  which  it  is  incorporated,  and  preventing  adhesion  to  the  knife,  etc. 

Patent  to  William  Cooley,  Waterbury,  Vt.,  1882,  for  artificial  cream.  This  process  is  to 
mix  oleo  oil,  olive  or  other  vegetable  oils,  with  skim  milk,  one  part  of  the  former  to  three  of 
the  latter,  heating  them  separately  to  about  150  degrees  Farhenheit,  blending  them  when 
heated.  This  enables  each  globule  of  the  oil  to  become  coated  with  the  caseine  in  the  milk, 
hence,  when  treated  with  rennet,  adapted  for  making  cheese.  When  this  artificial  cream  is 
used  for  making  butter  it  is  allowed  to  stand  a  day  or  two  to  become  acid  before  churning. 

Patent  to  H.  Laferty,  New  York  city,  1882,  for  artificial  butter.  Milk  is  treated  with  sal- 
soda,  then  mixed  with  oleo  oil,  coloring  matter  added,  churned,  salted,  etc. 

Patent  to  John  Hobbs,  Boston,  Mass.,  1882,  for  artificial  butter.  His  method  is  to  make 
an  emulsion  of  cottonseed  oil,  benne  oil  or  mustard  oil,  and  combine  with  oleomargarine  and 
milk. 

Patent  to  H.  R.  Wright,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1882,  for  artificial  butter,  styled  creamine.  A 
combination  of  oleo  oil,  lard  oil,  butter  oil  and  cream,  mixed  with  oil  of  seasame,  benne  oil  or 
oil  of  sunflower  seed,  or  cottonseed  oil,  colored  with  annoto,  with  the  addition  of  sugar  and 
salt. 

These  processes  and  others  that  do  not  appear  in  this  list  are  in  use  in  factories  all  over 
this  country,  and  the  compounds  they  produce  are  surreptitiously  placed  before  the  public  by 
conscienceless  dealers,  who  crave  sudden  riches  at  the  expense  of  honor,  honesty,  and  the 
health  of  their  fellow  beings.  If  this  nefarious  traffic  is  not  checked  by  the  strong  hand  of 
the  law  the  result  will  be  ruin  to  the  dairy  interest. 

From  the  discussions  of  chemists,  experts,  and  others — for  from  the  mauufacturers  of 
these  compounds  little  satisfactory  information  can  be  gained — a  prominent  dairyman  of  Iowa, 
one  of  the  leading  Western  butter  States,  has  found  that  five  grades  of  butterine  (the  modem 
name  for  Mege's  product)  are  made.  The  first  grade,  or  finest  quality,  contains  40  per  cent, 
of  fine  creamery  butter,  50  per  cent,  deodorized  lard,  and  the  other  10  per  cent,  is  made  up  of 
stearine  or  tallow  oil,  with  colorings  and  chemicals  to  give  a  fine  butter  taste  and  aroma  to  the 
compound.  The  next  grade  to  this  contains  about  30  per  cent,  fine  butter,  and  the  third  grade 
contains  20  per  cent,  fine  butter.  The  fourth  grade  contains  about  40  per  cent,  of  ordinary 
dairy  butter,  and  the  remainder  lard  and  stearine,  chemicals,  and  coloring.  The  fifth  grade 
contains  about  25  per  cent,  of  dairy  butter,  the  remainder  being  lard,  etc.  The  cost  of  the  in- 


22  OLEOMARGARINE   AND    BUTTERINE. 

gradients  of  this  butterine  may  be  reckoned  about  as  follows  :  40  pounds  fine  creamery  butter, 
25  cents  per  pound,  $10 ;  50  pounds  leaf  lard,  6  cents  per  pound,  $3 ;  5  pounds  stearine,  8 
cents  per  pound,  40  cents ;  labor,  salt,  and  sundries,  $1.60.  Total  cost  of  100  pounds,  say 
$15,  or  15  cents  per  pound  average  cost.  Sold  by  the  manufacturer  at  20  cents  per  pourid,  it 
gives  him  a  profit  of  five  cents  on  every  pound  made ;  and  retailed  by  the  grocer  at  25  cents 
per  pound  it  gives  him  a  profit  of  $5  on  every  100  pounds  sold.  The  other  grades  are  scaled 
in  about  the  same  proportions,  the  lowest  priced  article  of  butter  being  13  cents  per  pound. 
All  the  processes  under  which  the  butterine  is  made  are  covered  by  United  States  patents. 

"  In  one  factory  which  I  visited,"  said  this  gentleman,  Hon.  Joseph  Sampson  of  Storm 
Lake,  Iowa,  "I  found  that  the  owner  had  been  obliged  to  change  his  engine  three  times 
•during  the  present  year  with  a  view  to  increasing  the  capacity  for  greater  production  of  his 
*  fine  creamery  butter.'  At  first  he  only  had  a  capacity  of  10,000  pounds  per  day,  he  said, 
'but  now,  he  added,  with  a  self-satisfied  air,  '  I  can  make  55,000  pounds  per  day ;  and  if  I  had 
•orders  enough  I  could  make  more  by  running  night  and  day.'  I  accompanied  him  into  his 
refrigerator  and  shipping  room  and  saw  the  'butter'  ready  for  shipment  in  all  sorts  of  pack- 
ages, ranging  from  the  five-pound  box  for  select  family  use  up  to  the  fifty-six  pound  tub. 
-designed  for  the  pineries  of  Wisconsin  and  the  mining  camps  of  Colorado  and  Montana. 
•' How  do  you  brand  it  ?'  I  asked  him.  'Oh,'  was  the  reply,  « anything  a  man  pleases.  Any- 
thing we  are  asked  to  put  on  we  put  on  to  suit  the  fancy  of  the  customer.'  When  I  wanted  to 
see  the  lard  hashing  machines  in  the  upper  rooms  of  his  factory,  he  smiled  and  shrugged  his 
shoulders,  and  declined  to  accompany  me  to  the  place  where  the  lard  was  getting  its  initiatory 
'baptism  of  chemicals." 

All  the  manufacturers  he  visited  frankly  admitted  that  when  the  butter  left  their  factories  it 
lost  its  identity,  and  was  sold  by  retailers  everywhere  for  first-class  creamery  butter.  In  his 
quest  he  learned  also  that  many  grocers  engaged  in  the  traffic  made  it  a  practice  to  keep  low  grade, 
rancid  dairy  butter  in  stock,  side  by  side  with  the  oleomargarine  product,  and  ask  their  cus- 
tomers to  try  the  samples  and  judge  which  was  the  best.  This,  he  said,  was  a  favorite  trick 
in  the  Chicago  retail  trade. 

OLEOMARGARINE   NOT   WHOLESOME. 

"  Soon  after  I  made  my  first  annual  report,"  said  State  Dairy  Commissioner  Brown,  speak- 
ing of  his  recent  report,  which  is  regarded  as  a  very  valuable  contribution  to  what  may  be 
termed  the  literature  of  oleomargarine,  "  and  when  I  had  become  thoroughly  awake  to  the 
magnitude  and  the  iniquity  of  the  traffic  in  counterfeit  butter,  and  the  evils  it  gave  rise  to  through- 
out the  State,  I  determined  to  institute  a  thorough  investigation  with  a  view  of  satisfying  my- 
self upon  what  I  regard  as  the  main  question,  Whether  oleomargarine  is  \vholi$ome  or  not. 
It  was  obvious  to  me  that  if  it  was  wholesome  as  an  article  of  food,  the  only  legislation  that 
could  long  endure  would  doubtless  be  as  to  regulations  for  its  sale  ;  but  if  unwholesome,  that 
its  sale  could  be  absolutely  prohibited.  When  I  began  this  investigation,  I  secured  the  ser- 
vices of  Drs.  Elwyn  Waller  and  Edward  D.  Martin,  of  the  School  of  Mines,  Columbia  College, 
tooth  chemists  of  established  reputation  and  acknowledged  skill.  Their  labors,  together  with 
those  of  other  gentlemen,  including  Dr.  R.  D.  Clark  of  Albany,  who  assisted  them,  have  been 
extended  over  a  period  of  about  eight  months,  and  have  resulted  in  proving,  beyond  the  perad- 
venture  of  a  doubt,  that  the  product  so  largely  sold  here  and  elsewhere  for  human  food  is  un- 
wholesome. They  established,  by  a  series  of  experiments  on  oleomargarine  manufactured  in 
accordance  with  the  formulas  laid  down  in  the  patents,  and  with  fresh  beef  fat  as  the  chief  con- 
stituent, that  these  artificial  butters  are  so  decidedly  insoluble  and  indigestible  as  to  be  utterly 
unfit  for  human  food.  One  of  their  experiments,  which  is  described  and  illustrated  in  the  re- 
port, was  in  artificial  digestion.  I  am  not  enough  of  a  chemist  to  give  you  a  technical  descrip- 
tion of  the  process,  but  I  can  tell  you  that  samples  of  the  counterfeit  butter  that  were  sub- 
jected to  the  fluid  representing  the  gastric  juices,  retained  their  consistency  "and  solidity  for 


OLEOMARGARINE   AND    BUTTERINE.  23 

hours  longer  than  samples  of  pure  dairy  butter  that  were  similarly  treated.  This  is  not  the  re- 
sult of  one  experiment,  but  of  many,  and  in  some  cases  the  sham  butter  retained  its  form  and 
consistency  for  two  hours  or  more  after  the  genuine  article  had  dissolved.  I  must  refer  you 
to  the  report  for  a  more  detailed  description  of  these  interesting  experiments,  and  only  desire 
to  say  that  as  the  result  of  our  investigations  we  find  that  these  artificial  butters  are  unwhole- 
some upon  four  different  grounds : 

4<  First — On  account  of  their  indigestibility. 

•"  Second — In  insolubility  when  made  of  raw  animal  fats. 

"Third — On  account  of  the  strong  probability,  amounting  to  a  moral  certainty,  that  the 
bacteria  contained  in  the  raw  animal  fat  (where  the  fat  comes  from  animals  that  have  died 
without  the  intervention  of  the  butcher)  are  not  destroyed  by  the  processes  of  manufacture, 
and  that  disease  may  ensue  from  its  use  as  human  food. 

"  Fourth — The  strong  probability  that  these  counterfeit  butters,  when  manufactured  by 
unskilled  and  unscientific  workmen,  contain  ingredients  that  are  deleterious  to  public  health." 

"We  show  also  in  our  report,"  continued  the  commissioner,  "that  oil  made  from  the 
bodies  of  horses,  dogs,  and  other  animals  can  be  so  deodorized  as  to  remove  all  offensiveness, 
and  be  made  tasteless,  and,  thus  disguised,  the  most  expert  chemist  cannot  tell  whether  it  came 
from  an  animal  that  died  of  disease  or  by  the  hands  of  the  butcher.  An  eminent  chemist  who 
•experimented  with  lard  made  of  fat  taken  by  his  own  hands  from  the  body  of  a  hog  that  was 
suffering  from  cholera,  and  with  that  of  a  healthy  hog  that  was  killed  in  his  presence,  officially 
reported  to  the  department :  '  I  am  not  able  to  distinguish  the  lard  made  from  the  healthy  hog 
from  that  made  from  the  hog  that  was  suffering  with  cholera.'  It  has  been  established  by 
the  testimony  given  by  oleomargarine  manufacturers  before  the  Senate  committee  that  the 
oleomargarine  processes  use  no  heat  greater  than  140  degrees — the  majority  seldom  use  over 
no  degrees — while  chemists  declare  that  bacteria  existing  in  animal  matter  cannot  be  de- 
stroyed by  heat  of  less  than  212  degrees.  This  I  mention  as  a  proof  that  where  diseased  fat 
is  used,  as  it  undoubtedly  is  in  some  instances,  there  is  imminent  danger  of  disease.  The 
•competition  in  the  manufacture  of  these  counterfeits,  and  the  low  price  at  which  they  are  now 
selling,  are  apt  to  prompt  many  unscrupulous  manufacturers  to  make  use  of  the  fat  of  animals 
who  die  in  transit  or  of  disease,  and  which  are  cheap ;  and  thus  you  see  all  who  spread  these 
Counterfeits  over  their  bread  are  endangering  their  health. 

"One  of  the  arguments  used  by  the  manufacturers  to  prove  the  wholesomeness  of  their 
products  was  the  approval  they  received  when  Mege's  invention  was  first  introduced  from  the 
French  health  authorities.     This  shred  of  consolation  has  been  recently  withdrawn  from  them,0 
the  French  Government  having  lately  revoked  this  approval  and  pronounced  oleomargarine 
indigestible." 

"The  manufacturers  of  oleomargarine,"  said  a  prominent  member  of  the  Butter  and  Cheese 
Exchange,  "claim that  their  product  is  wholesome,  and  that  it  is  practically  the  same  as  nat- 
ural butter.  That  claim  was  specifically  made  before  the  health  committee  of  the  Legislature 
that  investigated  the  subject  in  1884,  and  I  was  present  at  some  of  the  sittings  at  which  the 
the  testimony  proved  that  the  claim  was  as  fraudulent  as  oleomargarine  itself.  Here  is  the 
testimony  of  Charles  Moses,  of  No.  41  First  Street  this  city,  who  was  a  laborer  in  an  oleomar- 
garine factory  on  Grove  Street.  His  duty  was  to  pack  the  product  in  tubs.  This  factory  was 
one  of  those  in  which  imitation  roll  butter  is  made.  The  witness  described  the  process  of 
packing,  which  had  to  be  done  by  hand,  and  being  asked  what  effect  this  had  on  his  hands 
replied : 

"  '  It  made  holes  in  them,  and  they  began  to  get  sorer  and  sorer,  and  I  finally  lost  a  nail. 
The  stuff" eat  right  through  to  the  bone.  My  hands  swelled  up,  and  the  stuff  that  dripped 
through  from  the  floor  above  that  on  which  I  was  working  wore  holes  in  my  clothes,  and  that 
on  the  floor  eat  into  my  boots.'  This  witness  said  that  in  consequence  of  injuries  received  in 
this  way  he  had  to  go  under  treatment  at  Bellevue  Hospital.  He  was  severely  cross-examined 


24  OLEOMARGARINE   AND    BUTTERINE. 

by  the  shrewd  lawyers  employed  by  the  oleomargarine  interest,  but  I  did  not  think  that  his 
testimony  was  impaired. 

"  I  only  quote  this  as  proof  that  certain  acids  are  used  in  the  oleomargarine  processes  that 
are  injurious  to  health.  If  they  were  strong  enough  to  '  eat  through  to  the  bone,'  as  this  wit- 
ness swore,  and  to  eat  into  his  boots,  what  must  their  effect  be  upon  the  human  stomach  ? 
Mind  you,  this  man  was  handling  the  product  prepared  for  the  market.  It  was  in  one-pound 
and  two-pound  rolls  (to  imitate  merchantable  butter),  each  roll  being  wrapped  in  a  cloth.  He 
packed  the  rolls  in  tubs,  and  the  mere  handling  of  them  produced  the  results  stated. 

"There  is  plenty  of  such  stuff  as  this  coming  to  this  market  from  the  West  every  day,  and 
yet  these  manufacturers  have  the  impudence  to  say  that  their  product  is  wholesome.  I  tell 
you  that  there  is  very  little  honest  oleomargarine  made  in  these  days.  I  use  the  word  '  hon- 
est '  advisedly,  for  when  the  product  first  came  into  vogue  it  was  honest,  inasmuch  as  it  was 
sold  for  what  it  was,  and  not  for  natural  butter.  But  of  late  years  a  class  of  unscrupulous  men 
have  gone  into  the  business,  which  realizes  enormous  profits,  and  by  using  cheaper  processes 
and  material  that  is  not  fit  for  human  food,  have  brought  it  into  general  disrepute." 

With  regard  to  the  wholesomeness  of  butterine  and  other  sham  butters,  an  essential  point, 
there  are  wide  differences  of  opinion.  Leading  chemists  pronounced  oleomargarine,  when  it 
was  first  introduced,  as  wholesome,  but  it  is  a  question  whether  they  would  commit  themselves 
to  a  similar  opinion  with  regard  to  the  product  as  at  present  sold,  in  view  of  the  tremendous  com- 
petition among  manufacturers  and  the  temptation  to  use  materials  that  are  impure  and  cheap. 
Col.  Robert  M.  Littler,  secretary  of  the  National  Butter,  Cheese,  and  Egg  Association,  said 
recently:  "Anybody  who  says  that  butterine  is  healthful  and  wholesome  either  does  not  know 
what  he  is  talking  about  or  else  lies.  Why  are  there  so  many  tapeworms  and  so  many  cases  of 
Bright's  disease  since  butterine  came  into  use  ?  The  embryo  tapeworm  exists  very  freely  in  leaf 
lard.  This  lard  must  be  cooked  if  you  want  to  destroy  the  animalculae.  It  is  not  cooked ;  it  is 
only  warmed  in  the  manufacture  of  butterine.  I  can  show  any  one,  by  the  use  of  the  microscope, 
the  animalculae.  When  a  hog  has  them  bad  it  is  called  measly.  No  matter  how  carefully  it 
may  be  prepared,  butterine  contains  acids  that  are  not  to  be  found  in  butter.  There  is  a  very 
easy  way  of  proving  this.  Put  calomel  into  butterine  and  you  have  corrosive  sublimate.  The 
Lord  only  knows  how  many  people  have  been  mysteriously  poisoned  by  taking  a  dose  of  calo- 
mel after  they  have  eaten  butterine.  In  many  instances  the  process  of  deodorizing  lard  ren- 
ders the  product  a  deadly  poison,  and  the  only  reason  why  fatal  results  do  not  immediately 
follow  is  because  it  is  taken  in  such  small  quantities. 


RUINING  THE  EXPORT  TRADE. 

The  following  from  The  New  York  Star  of  January  5,  1886,  comes  from  one  of  the  leading 
butter  merchants  of  the  country,  and  is  the  expression  of  the  views  of  a  practical  man  of  busi- 
ness who  has  been  prominently  identified  with  the  anti-oleomargarine  movement  since  its 
inception : 

"You  can  hardly  mention  an  interest  in  onr  country, "  said  ex-President  James  H.  Seymour, 
of  the  Mercantile  Exchange,  who  is  also  well  known  in  the  butter  trade,  "  that  is  not  protected, 
save  that  of  the  farmer.  The  only  tariff  protection  that  agriculture  receives  is  the  duty  on 
wool,  and  that  applies  to  comparatively  few  farmers.  Iron,  silk,  and  dozens  of  other  articles 
that  could  be  mentioned  are  protected  by  heavy  impositions  on  foreign  goods,  but  what  the 
farmer  produces  is  unprotected.  The  dairy  interest  is  one  of  the  largest  and  most  important 
industries  of  our  country,  and  represents  a  large  portion  of  the  income  of  a  majority  of  our 
farmers,  especially  in  the  State  of  New  York,  which  cannot  compete  with  the  West  in  the  pro- 
duction of  grain ;  and  yet  our  national  rulers  seem  loath  to  take  any  action  looking  to  its  pro- 
duction. It  seems  to  me  that  if  this  traffic  in  counterfeit  butter,  not  only  at  home  but  in 
foreign  lands,  where  it  makes  the  name  of  America  a  byword  and  a  reproach,  were  properly 


OLEOMARGARINE  AND   BUTTERINE.  25, 

represented  in  Congress,  prompt  action  for  its  suppression  or  regulation  would  speedily 
follow. 

"  I  believe  that  the  consumption  of  butter  to-day  is  30  per  cent,  less  than  it  would  be  but 
for  the  almost  universal  sale  of  these  counterfeit,  deleterious  products  of  the  oleomargarine 
factories.  I  believe  also  that  large  numbers  of  dwellers  in  cities  abstain  from  the  use  of  butter 
entirely  for  fear  of  getting  hold  of  the  bogus  stuff,  and  I  know  personally  of  several  families 
at  whose  table  butter  no  longer  appears. 

"  In  years  gone  by  American  butter  maintained  a  deservedly  high  reputation  in  Germany^ 
and  was  largely  exported  to  that  country,  but  since  the  advent  of  oleomargarine  (or  butterine 
as  it  is  called  now,  since  its  original  name  has  grown  into  well-deserved  disrepute)  the  German 
authorities,  who  keep  a  close  watch  on  the  food  products  sold  to  the  people,  and  visit  adultera- 
tion with  severe  punishment,  have  issued  orders  that  no  American  butter  shall  be  received  in 
future  until  after  it  has  undergone  a  thorough  chemical  test  to  establish  its  genuineness  and 
purity.  This  is  in  one  sense  a  compliment  to  the  skill  and  ingenuity  of  the  oleomargarine 
manufacturers,  for  it  shows  they  turn  out  a  product  calculated  to  deceive  even  the  best  experts  ; 
but  the  mercantile  community,  the  basis  of  whose  foreign  trade  is  their  unblemished  honor  and 
their  reputation  for  fair  dealing,  view  this  new  order  with  sorrow.  They  cannot  blame  the 
German  authorities,  for  their  action  was  brought  about  by  the  importation  of  thousands  of  pounds 
of  sham  butter  or  oleomargarine  oil  out  of  which  to  make  it,  and  was  taken  purely  in  self-defense. 
But  they  do  blame  their  own  government  for  failing  to  so  regulate  this  nefarious  traffic  as  to 
prevent  the  possibility  of  such  wholesale  swindles. 

"  So  long  as  this  stuff,  made  of  the  refuse  of  the  stables  and  the  shambles  and  of  other 
materials  that  make  one  shudder  to  think  of,  is  manufactured  in  the  West — and  I  believe  that 
the  greater  proportion  of  the  most  worthless  grades  of  oleomargarine  comes  from  that  section 
— is  shipped  to  this  market  as  butter,  I  cannot  see  how  the  legitimate  trade  can  be  protected. 
It  comes  in  quantities  over  the  railroads,  paying  freight  as  butter,  and,  in  spite  of  the  law  pro- 
hibiting its  sale,  gets  into  the  hands  of  conscienceless  retailers  and  then  figures  on  the  tables 
of  our  citizens  as  dairy  or  creamery  butter.  The  manufacturers  shield  themselves  from  the 
penalties  of  the  law  by  selling  the  product  under  its  own  name,  but  they  know  as  well  as  I  do 
that  it  cannot  be  sold  in  this  city  except  as  natural  butter.  Is  not  this  offering  a  premium 
for  crime  ?  The  retailers,  when  arrested  and  arraigned  in  court,  always  deny  that  they  rep- 
resented the  article  as  butter,  but  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  the  proof  that  they  did  is  produced, 
and  this  fact  the  manufacturers  must  know. 

"What  we  need  is  a  national  law  regulating  this  traffic,  and  if  we  get  the  law  we  want  to 
see  it  enforced.  Prohibition  of  the  manufacture  of  oleomargarine  is,  I  think,  out  of  the  ques- 
tion, but  it  is  generally  conceded  that  Congress  has  the  power  to  regulate  interstate  commerce^ 
and  an  act  of  this  nature  would  come  within  its  province." 

The  exports  of  oleomargarine  have  increased  rapidly  since  its  introduction,  so  that  where 
they  only  reached  one-half  of  the  exports  of  the  genuine  dairy  product  in  1880  they  now  about 
double  them.  The  annual  average  of  decrease  in  the  exports  of  butter  between  1880  and  1885 
was  9,51 0,706  pounds,  while  those  of  oleomargarine  have  shown  an  annual  average  increase 
of  2,647,000  pounds.  The  figures  appended  show  the  recorded  exports  of  butter  and  oleomar- 
garine for  the  years  named,  but  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  a  considerable  amount  of  the 
latter  was  exported  as  butter. 

Butter.  Oleo.  Total. 

1880..: 39,236,650        20,000,000        59,236,650 

^881 31,560,500        26,300,000        57,800,500 

1882 14,794,300        22,000,000        36>794,3°° 

1883 12,348,640        23,400,000       35,748,640 

1884 20,627,374       39,322,841        59>95°*2I5 

1885 21,683,148       37,882,155        59>565>3°3 

By  these  figures  it  will  be  seen  that  while  the  exports  of  butter  decreased  18,609,276  pounds- 


26  OLEOMARGARINE  AND   BUTTERINE. 

in  1884  and  17,553,502  pounds  in  1885  (as  compared  with  the  exports  of  1880),  the  increase  in 
the  exports  of  oleomargarine  (comparing  the  years  1880  and  1885)  was  17,882,155  pounds, 
and  in  the  last  two  years  the  exports  of  the  bogus  article  have  almost  doubled  those  of  the 
genuine.  The  loss  to  the  foreign  trade  of  the  United  States  by  the  substitution  of  oleomar- 
garine for  butter  is  not  shown  by  quantities,  but  by  values.  In  1885  the  aggregate  value  of 
the  exports  of  butter  and  oleomargarine  was  $8,095,278,  that  of  butter  being  $3,643,646  and 
oleomargarine  $4,451,632.  If  butter  had  taken  the  place  of  oleomargarine  in  the  exportation 
the  aggregate  value  would  have  been  about  $10,000,000.  Upon  the  assumption  that  the  ex- 
ports of  butter  were  decreased  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  oleomargarine  exported,  the  loss 
to  the  butter  makers  was  $6,357,000 and  to  the  foreign  trade  $1,915,000. 

Mr.  C.  L.  Smith,  of  Rice  &  Smith,  well-known  exporters  of  butter,  called  upon  Assistant 
Dairy  Commissioner  Van  Valkenburgh  early  in  January,  and  asked  him  for  copies  of  the  laws 
of  the  State  of  New  York  covering  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  and  its  com- 
pounds. He  explained  that  he  had  been  requested  by  a  member  of  the  English  Parliament  to  for- 
ward him  these  laws  and  such  other  information  regarding  counterfeit  butter  as  he  could  obtain, 
his  object  being  to  prepare  an  act  prohibiting  the  importation  of  the  product  into  Great  Britain. 
In  connection  with  this,  the  following  extract  from  the  London  Lancet,  an  eminent  author- 
ity on  questions  of  public  health,  may  not  prove  uninteresting  : 

"Owing  to  the  large  importation  of  butterine  and  the  sale  of  this  article  as  butter,  it  is  im- 
possible*to  produce,  import,  and  sell  pure  butter  at  a  profit.  Butterine  can  be  sold  at  ,£3  135 
(about  $17.50)  per  hundred  weight  (112  pounds),  while  imported  butter  sells  at  £$  gs  (about 
$26.50)  per  hundred  weight.  There  may  not  be  much  difference  in  the  nutritive  value  of  these 
two  fatty  articles  of  food,  if  digested  and  assimilated,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  dietetic 
value  of  the  one  over  the  other." 

Commenting  upon  this,  the  Chicago  Dairyman  says:  "There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
large  importations  have  depressed  the  market  in  England  and  Ireland  to  an  extent  that  is  seri- 
ously oppressive  to  the  dairy  farmers,  who  find  their  receipts  for  October  butter  ruinously 
small.  The  foreign  market  and  the  English  dairymen  are  not  the  only  parties  suffering  from 
this  product  and  its  fraudulent  sale;  for  on  this  side  a  similar  decline  has  been  experienced, 
.and  dairy  products  rule  at  prices  that  are  very  discouraging.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  put 
upon  the  market  without  disguise,  in  fair  competition  with  honest  goods,  butterine  would  find 
its  level  and  straight  butter  prove  remunerative.  The  consumer  is  also  interested  in  obtaining 
a  pure  article  of  butter,  and  none  can  be  pure  that  is  not  the  product  of  the  dairy ;  but  it  is  a 
serious  question  whether  hog  fat  or  beef  fat  made  into  butterine  is  a  suitable  substance  for  hu- 
man food.  It  is  also  a  question  whether  the  process  of  manufacture,  the  treatment  with  acids, 
while  it  renders  the  stuff  pleasant  to  the  sight  and  agreeable  to  the  taste  and  smell,  does  not 
;also  make  it  indigestible  and  unfit  for  human  food." 

WHAT   REPUTABLE  RETAILERS  SAY. 

The  retail  traffic  in  oleomargarine,  so  far  as  New  York  city  is  concerned,  is  confined  mainly 
to  a  class  of  cheap  grocers,  who  are  allured  by  the  tempting  profit  in  its  sale  to  risk  the  pun- 
ishment for  violating  the  law.  Appended  are  the  views  of  a  few  well-known  retailers  : 

"  We  have  never  sold  oleomargarine  in  our  store,"  said  Mr.  Callahan,  of  Callahan  &  Kerhp, 
the  Vesey  street  grocers,  "  although  since  the  introduction  of  the  article  we  have  been  almost 
daily  importuned  to  do  so.  When  the  counterfeit  stuff  first  came  into  general  use,  several 
years  ago,  an  agent  representing  a  certain  manufacturer  called  upon  us  with  samples  of  his 
wares.  We  smelled  and  tasted  them,  and  found  them  to  be  very  clever  imitations  of  butter, 
but  at  the  same  time  we  declined  to  enter  into  the  traffic,  although  at  that  period  there  was  no 
special  law  prohibiting  it.  Our  position  in  the  matter  was  that,  as  legitimate  traders,  we  could 
not  afford  to  deal  in  imitations  of  any  sort,  knowing  them  to  be  imitations.  The  agent  de- 
•clared  that  a  majority  of  the  leading  dealers  in  our  line  of  business  were  selling  the  article  and 


OLEOMARGARINE  AND   BUTTERINE.  27 

realizing  handsome  profits,  but  in  spite  of  thij  we  persisted  in  refusing.  Then  he  predicted 
that  in  the  course  of  time  we  would  be  forced,  in  self-protection,  to  do  as  others  were  doing. 
That  was  more  than  five  years  ago,  and  we  have  never  had  occasion  to  change  our  course  yet. 
Sometimes  we  receive  orders  from  country  dealers  for  small  lots  of  oleomargarine,  and  these 
\ve  fill,  but  we  buy  it  from  the  factory  and  send  it  directly  away,  so  that  we  may  truly  say  that 
no  bogus  butter  ever  enters  our  store.  I  believe  that  oleomargarine,  as  it  was  originally  made, 
and  as  it  was  sold  when  it  was  first  introduced,  was  wholesome;  and  I  would  not  object  to  its 
sale  now,  always  providing  that  it  were  sold  as  oleomargarine,  and  not  as  butter.  I  believe, 
too,  that  much  of  the  bogus  compound  that  is  now  sold  is  not  wholesome,  since  it  seems  to  be 
reasonably  well  established  that  the  competition  in  the  manufacture  of  the  product  has  prompted 
unscrupulous  men  to  make  use  of  materials  that  are  not  fit  for  human  food,  and  to  employ  pro- 
cesses in  the  manufacture  that  are  dangerous  to  public  health. 

"  If  the  manufacturers  would  agree  to  allow  their  product  to  be  sold  on  its  merits,  to  have 
.it  placed  before  the  consumers  as  oleomargarine,  or — if  they  prefer  the  name — as  artificial  but- 
ter, there  would  be  no  opposition  on  the  part  of  legitimate  dealers.  But  this  they  will  not  do. 
All  their  efforts  seem  to  be  directed  toward  deceiving  the  consumer's.  If  they  are  honest  in 
•what  they  claim,  that  their  product  is  equal  to  most  dairy  butters  and  superior  to  the  lower 
grades,  why  do  they  send  it  to  market  in  packages  designed  to  imitate  those  used  by  legiti- 
mate dairymen  and  creameries  ?  Then  again,  although  they  sell  the  stuff  as  oleomargarine  or 
as  butterine,  or  under  any  of  the  names  that  the  compounds  have  assumed,  they  must  know 
•that  the  retailers  whom  they  supply  dispose  of  it  in  most  cases  as  natural  butter.  They  indi- 
vidually comply  with  the  law,  in  that  they  sell  their  sham  product  for  what  it  is  ;  but  do  you 
for  an  instant  suppose  that  these  bright,  enterprising  business  men,  who  keep  themselves  well 
informed  in  all  matters  concerning  the  trade  they  are  interested  in,  are  not  aware  that  they  are 
accessories  to  the  violation  of  the  law  ?  Do  they  not  know,  as  you  and  I  do,  that  not  one  out 
•of  a  thousand  of  the  consumers  of  butter  in  this  city  would  buy  artificial  butter  when  it  was 
presented  to  them  in  its  true  colors  ?  As  far  as  we  are  concerned,  we  will  have  nothing  to  do 
with  this  artificial  stuff.  We  look  upon  butterine — the  latest  name  of  the  swindle — as  one  hun- 
dred times  worse  than  the  original  oleomargarine,  and  as  far  as  we  are  concerned  we  shall  de- 
cline to  deal  in  imitations  of  any  kind." 

"  Do  you  think  there  is  any  great  quantity  of  oleomargarine  or  butterine  sold  in  this  city 
.at  present  ?" 

"  I  have  no  means  of  knowing  definitely  how  much  is  sold,  but  any  dealer  in  butter  will 
tell  you  that  his  sales  have  fallen  off,  that  the  prices  have  been  reduced,  and  that  the  business 
is  in  a  bad  way.  I  know  of  houses  in  this  city  where  the  same  grade  of  oleomargarine  is  sold 
from  different  tubs  as  fine  or  medium  dairy  butter  at  from  twenty-five  to  thirty-five  cents  a 
.pound,  and  yet,  notwithstanding  the  difference  in  the  retail  price,  the  stuff  sold  is  the  product 
of  one  factory." 

Mr.  Benjamin  F.  Smith,  of  Washington  Market,  who  is  one  of  the  oldest  and  best  known 
dealers  in  the  butter  trade,  said  that,  so  far  as  he  knew,  no  bogus  butter  was  now  being  sold 
in  the  market.  "  The  fact  is,"  continued  Mr.  Smith,  "that  all  the  dealers  are  bitterly  op- 
posed to  the  traffic  and  keep  a  sharp  lookout  for  violations  of  the  law.  If  any  dealer  tried  to 
retail  the  stuff  he  would  get  into  trouble,  and  so  for  the  past  year  or  so  the  traffic  has  been  sus- 
pended. Of  course,  if  people  come  to  us  and  ask  for  oleomargarine  or  butterine,  as  they  occa- 
sionally do,  we  get  it  for  them,  but  the  understanding  is  that  we  sell  it  for  what  it  is." 

"  The  oleomargarine  men  claim  that  they  do  not  imitate  butter,  but  that  their  product  is 
intended  as  a  substitute  for  that  of  the  dairy.  In  what  shape  does  oleomargarine  come  to 
market?" 

"  You  might  just  as  well  ask  me  in  what  shape  dairy  and  creamery  butter  come,  for  there  is 
scarcely  a  package  used  by  the  dairies  or  creameries  that  is  not  imitated  by  the  manufacturers 
of  the  bogus  compounds  of  beef  and  hog  fat,  nitric  acid,  and  other  choice  ingredients.  Here  I 
.have  some  Western  creamery.  You  see  it  is  packed  in  layers  in  ash  tubs.  In  the  trade  they 


28  OLEOMARGARINE  AND   BUTTERINE, 

are  called  Welsh  tubs.  Well,  I  can  get  you  oleomargarine  and  butterine  that  is  put  up  in  ex- 
actly the  same  way.  There  is  a  half-firkin  tub  of  State  dairy  butter,  a  famous  medium  brand, 
and  next  to  it  stands  a  tub  containing  State  creamery  butter.  These,  too,  are  closely  imitated, 
and  if  a  dealer  is  not  an  expert  and  able  to  judge  he  is  liable  to  be  imposed  upon.  Some  of 
the  fancy  priced  butter  conies  in  one  and  two  pound  rolls,  stamped  and  covered  with  linen 
cloth,  and  arranged  in  a  box  on  sliding  shelves.  This  style,  too,  the  oleomargarine  men  imi- 
tate, and  the  average  consumer,  who  too  often  takes  the  package  as  an  index  of  the  contents, 
is  very  often  deceived." 

"  Do  customers  ever  ask  you  whether  your  butter  is  genuine  ?" 

"  Our  regular  customers  know  us,  and  do  not  need  to  ask;  but  transient  customers  very 
often  inquire  whether  our  butter  is  genuine  or  dairy.  I  have  never  tried  it  yet,  but  I  believe 
that  if  I  put  some  sham  butter  on  my  stand  and  offered  it  to  my  customers  as  they  came  io 
make  their  purchases,  taking  care  to  inform  them  exactly  what  it  was,  there  is  not  one  out  of  a 
hundred  that  would  buy  a  pound  of  it.  You  can  put  it  down  as  a  fact  that  only  the  cheap  res- 
taurants and  boarding  nouses  buy  oleomargarine  on  its  merits.  They  purchase  it  largely,  and 
know  exactly  what  they  are  buying ;  but,  when  the  average  consumer  invests  in  the  stuff,  it  i? 
because  he  is  led  to  believe  that  he  is  buying  the  genuine  article." 

Mr.  H.  Rohr,  grocer,  of  No.  574  Seventh  avenue,  a  leading  member  of  the  Grocers'  Retail 
Union,  said:  "This  infamous  traffic  in  bogus  butter  is  rapidly  ruining  our  trade,  so  far  as 
dealers  of  moderate  capital  and  of  recent  establishment  are  concerned.  Many  customers  that 
formerly  bought  butter  from  the  grocer  in  the  neighborhood  now  prefer  to  go  to  dealers  of  es- 
tablished reputation,  such  as  Acker,  Merrall  &  Condit  or  Park  &  Tilford,  for  instance,  of 
whom  they  are  morally  certain  to  obtain  nothing  but  the  genuine  article.  In  the  last  three 
years,  owing  to  the  lack  of  public  confidence  caused  by  the  almost  universal  sale  of  these  vile 
compounds,  the  retail  trade  in  butter  has  fallen  off  fully  33  per  cent.,  and  if  some  action  is  not 
taken  soon  by  the  authorities  I  fear  that  the  falling  off  in  the  future  will  be  greater  still.  While 
my  own  business,  taking  the  sales  of  sugar  and  other  standard  groceries,  has  increased  proba- 
bly 50  per  cent,  in  the  past  four  years,  my  trade  in  butter  has  decreased  nearly  as  much,  and 
I  suppose  there  are  hundreds  of  other  reputable  retail  grocers  who  will  tell  you  the  same  story. 
My  only  transaction  in  bogus  butter  occurred  about  a  year  ago,  and  illustrates  very  aptly  one 
phase  of  the  traffic.  One  day  an  old  lady,  who  kept  a  boarding  house  in  my  neighborhood, 
came  to  my  store  and  asked  me  if  I  ever  sold  oleomargarine.  I  told  her  that  I  did  not  deal  in 
it.  She  asked  me  whether  I  could  get  her  some  as  a  special  accommodation/  I  went  to  a  fac- 
tory and  bought  a  single  tub,  of  which  the  old  lady  purchased  fifteen  pounds.  Soon  afterward 
she  visited  me  again  and  asked  me  to  enter  the  oleomargarine  on  my  bill  as  butter,  explaining 
that  if  her  boarders  complained  of  the  stuff  and  asked  any  questions  she  wanted  to  have  my  bill 
to  show.  '  Don't  you  see,  madame,'  I  answered,  '  that  that  would  render  me  amenable  to  the 
law  ?'  Well,  the  old  lady  refused  to  buy  any  more,  declaring  that  she  would  go  to  the  factory 
in  future  for  her  supply,  and  I  sent  back  what  remained  in  the  tub  to  the  manufacturer.  I  have 
no  doubt  that  many  grocers  are  furnishing  boarding  houses  with  butter  on  the  terms  proposed 
by  the  old  lady  to  me,  but  I  could  not  afford  to  do  it.  I  am  willing  to  sell  oleomargarine  if  a 
customer  asked  for  it,  but  I  will  only  sell  it  as  oleomargarine." 

HOW  THE    EXECUTION   OF   THE    LAW  IS  OBSTRUCTED. 

The  appended  interviews  with  counsel  of  the  State  Dairy  Commissioner  will  serve  to  show 
how  the  violators  of  the  law  resort  to  all  possible  subterfuges  to  evade  the  penalties  it 
imposes,  and  also  give  some  important  information  as  to  other  statutes  governing  this  nefari- 
ous traffic : 

"  There  has  been  considerable  misconception  among  retail  dealers  as  to  the  status  of  the 
laws  regarding  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine,"  said  Mr.  Frank  Oliver,  the  coun 
sel  in  this  city  for  the  State  Dairy  Commisioner,  "  and  for  some  time  after  the  announcement 


OLEOMARGARINE   AND    BUTTERINE.  29 

that  the  Court  of  Appeals  had  declared  the  act  of  1884  unconstitutional,  the  prevailing  belief 
among  them  was  that  they  might  go  on  selling  their  compounds  of  beef  fat,  neutral  lard,  and 
artificially  colored  counterfeits  of  natural  butter  with  impunity.  A  few  timely  arrests  dis- 
abused their  minds  of  this  erroneous  impression,  but  there  are  still  numbers  of  them  who 
persist  in  evading  the  law.  Thus  far  there  has  been  only  one  conviction  in  the  Court  of 
Special  Sessions  for  violations  of  the  law  under  the  latest  act,  and  this  was  on  the  confession 
of  the  defendant  of  his  guilt,  and  one  in  the  Court  of  General  Sessions.  The  latter  is  the  case 
of  Benjamin  J.  Hill,  a  Harlem  grocer,  who  was  accused  of  selling  oleomargarine  or  butterine 
as  butter.  In  the  affidavit  upon  which  the  charge  was  made,  which  was  sworn  to  by  one  of 
the  Commissioner's  inspectors,  it  was  asserted  that  Hill  had  offered  to  sell  him  a  quantity  of 
butter,  but  failed  to  inform  him  that  it  was  an  imitation  of  the  natural  product,  and  also  that 
the  deponent  had  closely  inspected  the  tub  containing  the  so-called  butter,  and  found  upon  it 
no  brand  or  printed  label,  as  required  by  law,  designating  it  as  oleomargarine.  The  bogus 
butter  thus  produced  the  inspector  submitted  to  Charles  W.  Stillwell,  a  professional  chemist, 
for  analysis,  and  it  was  found  to  be  a  compound  of  animal  fat,  curd,  salt-water,  and  coloring 
.material,  and  to  contain  no  characteristic  of  the  genuine  article  save  in  color." 

"  Can  you  give  me  the  certificate  of  analysis  in  that  case  ?" 

"No.  I  have  no  copy  of  it.  But  all  the  compounds  are  very  much  alike,  and  this,  which 
is  the  certificate  of  analysis  in  another  case,  will  serve  equally  well.  Here  is  the  analysis  : 

Animal  and  butter  fat 87.41 

Curd 1.30 

Salt  (ash) '-    -  -  2.91 

Water  at  100  deg.  C 8.38 

100.00 

"Here  is  another  which  shows  85.01  of  animal  and  butter  fat,  1.09  of  curd,  2.36  of  salt 
•(ash),  and  11.54  of  water.  Appended  to  each  certificate  are  the  words  :  '  This  sample  is  com- 
posed mainly  of  animal  fat,  and  was  not  produced  from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  from 
the  same.  It  was  not  produced  from  milk  or  cream  alone.  It  contains  coloring  matter, 
whereby  it  is  made  to  resemble  butter,  the  product  of  the  dairy,  and  it  is  in  imitation  and  sem- 
blance of  butter  produced  from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  from  the  same. ' 

"  You  will  observe  that  this  certificate  does  not  specify  what  sort  of  animal  fat  is  used,  nor 
the  materials  used  for  coloring.  It  may  be  the  fat  of  beef  cattle,  or  of  horses,  or  of  hogs,  or, 
in  fact,  of  any  animal ;  but  it  is  not  necessary  in  these  proceedings  to  go  into  details.  It  is 
sufficient  to  demonstrate  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  court  that  the  product  is  not  what  the  seller 
represented  it  to  be  to  the  purchaser,  as  herein  lies  the  violation  of  the  law. 

"  There  are  other  laws  under  which  we  can  take  action  against  these  sellers  of  bogus  butter 
besides  that  of  1885,  and  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  the  so-called  test  case  (that 
of  the  people  against  Marx)  clearly  points  out  the  fact  of  their  existence.  Section  403  of  the 
Criminal  Code  provides  that  any  person  who  sells,  or  manufactures,  or  offers  for  sale  for  human 
food  any  substance  in  imitation  of  any  such  food  product,  without  disclosing  the  fact  that  it  is 
an  imitation,  and  displaying  a  suitable  and  plainly  visible  mark  that  it  is  an  imitation,  shall  be 
deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  ;  and  Section  407  provides  that  any  person  selling  food  or 
drink,  adulterated  or  diluted,  as  unadulterated  or  undiluted,  without  first  disclosing  the  same 
and  informing  the  purchaser  of  the  bogus  nature  of  the  product,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a 
misdemeanor,  and  be  subject  to  an  imprisonment  not  exceeding  one  year  and  a  fine  not  exceed- 
ing $500. 

"This  section  clearly  provides  that  the  intention  to  defraud  shall  be  shown,  and  it  is  held 
that  the  withholding  of  the  information  as  to  the  fraudulent  nature  of  the  product  by  the  seller 
would  be  positive  evidence  of  intent  to  defraud. 


3©  OLEOMARGARINE  AND   BUTTERINE. 

"  My  experience  of  the  trial  of  cases  of  this  kind  has  been  somewhat  limited,  but  in  all  the 
cases  that  have  so  far  come  up  the  defendants  have  invariably  denied  that  they  represented  the 
stuff  they  sold  to  be  butter. 

"  In  the  Hill  case  notice  of  appeal  was  given  after  the  close  of  the  trial  and  the  payment 
under  protest  of  the  fine  of  $100.  It  should  come  up  before  the  Court  of  Appeals  at  an  early 
day,  but  I  have  not  seen  it  on  the  calendar  for  the  next  sitting  of  that  tribunal.  There  are 
now  pending  four  cases  in  the  Court  of  Special  Sessions,  and  thirty-three  in  the  Court  of  Gen- 
eral Sessions.  There  have  been  complaints  as  to  some  of  the  minor  courts  that  proceedings  of 
this  nature  were  unnecessarily  delayed  in  order  that  the  judges  below  might  await  the  opinion 
of  those  in  the  higher  court;  but  1  do  not  attribute  the  delay  to  this  cause.  In  the  case  of  the 
Court  of  General  Sessions,  where  the  calendar  is  overcrowded,  oleomargarine  cases  must  wait, 
as  liquor  license  cases  do,  and  hence  it  is  that  nearly  all  the  dealers  arrested  elect  to  be  tried 
in  that  court.  In  many  of  these  cases  a  civil  suit  is  pending  for  the  recovery  of  the  $500 
penalty  for  the  violation  of  the  law,  but  many  dealers  have  preferred  to  pay  the  penalty  rather 
than  go  to  trial. 

"  The  four  cases  that  are  to  come  before  the  Court  of  Special  Sessions  will  be  heard  next 
week.  They  are  all  for  selling  oleomargarine  for  butter,  as  are  all  that  have  been  acted  upon 
hitherto,  and  the  defendants  are  John  H.  Lyddy,  John  Howell,  Charles  H.  Rohrs,  and  Her- 
man Schnaars,  all  grocers." 

At  the  time  of  the  trial  of  the  Marks  case  in  the  Court  of  General  Sessions,  and  after 
notice  of  appeal  had  been  given,  the  dealers  in  oleomargarine  asserted  openly  that  no  more 
trials  for  violations  of  the  act  of  1885  would  be  held  until  after  the  decision  of  that  appeal  by 
the  court  in  Albany.  They  intimated  that  the  ground  for  their  assertions  came  from  the 
office  of  the  district-attorney.  Several  members  of  the  trade  who  were  deeply  interested  in  the 
suppression  of  this  nefarious  traffic  and  the  enforcement  of  the  law  called  upon  District- 
Attorney  Martine,  who  had  then  newly  assumed  office.  He  assured  them  that  he  was  in 
ignorance  whether  any  such  agreement  had  been  entered  into  by  his  predecessor,  and  declared 
that  if  any  arrangement  of  that  sort  had  been  made  it  would  not  influence  his  action.  And 
that  it  did  not  was  evidenced  by  his  subsequently  bringing  several  cases  to  trial.  That  they 
were  postponed  was  due  to  the  crowded  condition  of  the  calendar. 

"  You  can  scarcely  conceive  to  how  great  an  extent  this  fraudulent  traffic  in  counterfeit 
butter,  whose  component  parts  are  animal  fat,  nitric  acid,  and  other  deleterious  articles,  is 
practiced  by  unprincipled  grocers  and  others,"  said  Mr.  Arthur  C.  Salmon,  the  counsel  for  the 
State  Dairy  Commissioner  in  the  City  of  Brooklyn  and  Kings  County,  when  asked  as  to  the 
progress  made  by  the  department  in  its  efforts  to  enforce  the  law.  "  I  came  across  a  case  not 
long  since  in  which  it  appeared  that  five  different  samples  of  alleged  pure  butter  were  pur- 
chased at  a  single  store  for  as  many  different  prices,  and  each  of  these  samples  proved,  upon 
analysis,  to  belong  to  the  same  grade  of  oleomargarine.  It  is  not  unusual  for  dealers  in  this 
counterfeit  butter  to  sell  the  contents  of  a  single  tub  at  as  many  as  three  different  prices,  the 
rate  being  fixed  in  each  case  entirely  by  the  character  of  the  customer. 

"  We  have  detected  oleomargarine  in  the  stores  of  dealers  in  every  part  of  the  City  ar. 
Brooklyn,  some  of  whom  seemed  to  be  above  suspicion ;  but  I  believe  that  at  present  very 
few  first-class  grocers  handle  it-  As  to  how  much  bogus  butter  is  sold  here  it  would  be  hard 
to  say,  but  the  latest  statistics  I  have  seen  show  that  the  sales  in  the  State  in  1884  amounted 
to  40,000,000  pounds.  Inasmuch  as  the  traffic  has  not  been  materially  interfered  with  in  many 
parts  of  the  State,  the  increase  in  1884  must  have  been  considerable." 

With  regard  to  the  act  of  1885,  which  was  passed  while  the  test  case  was  under  con- 
sideration in  the  Court  of  Appeals,  and  which  is  referred  to  in  their  opinion,  Mr.  Salmon 
aid: 

"  This  enactment  prohibits  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  any  oleaginous  substance  in  imita- 
tion or  semblance  of  butter.  It  not  only  prohibits  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  butter,  but  if 
sold  at  all  it  must  not  be  colored  or  made  in  imitation  of  cream  butter.  The  intention 


OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE,  3! 

of  the  legislature  is  plain.  All  cases  now  being  prosecuted  by  me  are  cases  where  the  defend- 
ants have  sold  oleomargarine  as  butter,  the  product  of  the  dairy,  the  sale  being  clearly  a- 
fraud  upon  the  public,  although  they  swear  in  court  that  it  was  sold  for  what  it  was.  That 
seemingly  respectable  tradesmen  should  engage  in  such  a  traffic  I  cannot  explain,  except  per- 
haps upon  the  hypothesis  that  the  enormous  profits  to  be  derived  from  dealings  in  the  cheap- 
and  bogus  product  tempt  them  to  risk  the  chances  of  detection  and  prosecution.  I  am  informed 
that  the  price  of  oleomargarine  delivered  at  the  factory  is  from  eleven  to  thirteen  cents  a 
pound,  and  yet  last  winter  I  convicted  a  man  of  selling  a  pound  of  this  stuff  for  thirty-seven 
cents,  which  was  then  the  price  of  fine  creamery  butter.  Is  it  natural  to  suppose  that  he  sold 
this  stuff  to  a  purchaser  who  knew  exactly  what  it  was  ? 

"  The  law  of  1885  was  one  of  the  results  of  a  very  close  and  exhaustive  examination  into 
the  healthfulness  of  oleomargarine  by  the  Senate  committee  on  public  health.  They  heard  a 
great  deal  of  evidence  pro  and  con,  and  unanimously  favored  the  passage  of  the  act.  It  may 
be  possible  to  make  oleomargarine  in  such  a  manner  and  of  such  materials  that  it  will  not  be 
absolutely  unwholesome ;  but  how  can  that  be  guaranteed  to  the  public  ?  When  you  consider 
that  as  competition  grows,  as  it  does  grow  every  day,  its  selling  price  is  reduced,  and  the 
necessity  for  cheapening  the  materials  and  the  processes  of  manufacture  is  increased,  it  is  easy 
to  see  how  great  is  the  temptation  to  utilize  material  that  is  unfit  for  human  food.  When  you 
consider  further  that  this  sham  butter  depends  for  its  sale  upon  fraud  and  deception,  and  fur- 
ther still  that  it  can  be  made  of  any  animal  fat,  no  matter  in  what  condition  or  whence 
obtained,  I  leave  it  to  you  to  decide  whether  you  would  regard  it  as  a  wholesome  or  safe 
article  of  food  to  give  your  children.  They  can  still  sell  their  bogus  butter  to  those  who  want 
to  purchase  it,  provided  it  is  not  colored  or  made  in  imitation  of  butter ;  but  I  fancy  that  their 
customers,  should  they  try  to  sell  their  products  on  its  own  merits,  would  be  few  and  far 
between." 

Assistant  State  Dairy  Commissioner  B.  F.  Van  Valkenburgh,  who  was  appointed  under  the 
act  of  1884,  and  who  has  had  many  years  of  experience  in  the  butter  trade,  said  yesterday : 

"  When  the  Court  of  Appeals  decided  against  the  constitutionality  of  the  act  of  1884  a 
good  many  cases  of  violation  of  the  law  were  left  on  the  calendar,  and  the  impression  among 
grocers  was  general  that  they  could  go  right  along  selling  bogus  butter.  It  was  hard  to  make 
them  understand  that  the  new  law  was  in  effect,  but  during  the  summer  months,  when  trade 
was  dull,  we  found  very  few  violations  of  the  law.  In  September,  however,  when  the  cool 
weather  began  to  set  in,  there  was  a  marked  advance  in  the  price  of  dairy  butter,  and  this 
gave  the  conscienceless  traders  in  the  bogus  stuff  the  opportunity  they  craved.  Since 
September  last  we  have  made  over  one  hundred  arrests,  and  many  of.  the  cases  are  still  pend- 
ing in  the  courts.  In  nearly  all  of  these  ,the  defendants  declared  that  they  sold  the  bogus 
butter  as  oleomargarine,  and  in  this  their  clerks  unblushingly  backed  them  up,  but  in  no  case 
did  we  make  an  arrest  until  we  had  sure  proof  that  the  product  was  sold  as  prime  dairy  but- 
ter. The  temptation  to  deal  in  oleomargarine  is  a  very  great  one,  for  the  retailer  can  realize 
a  profit  much  greater  than  that  of  a  pawnbroker.  He  can  buy  the  bogus  butter  for  from, 
eleven  to  fourteen  cents  a  pound,  and  sell  for  from,  twenty-six  to  thirty-two  cents  a  pound. 
They  do  not  dare  to  sell  it  cheaper  than  this,  for  fear  of  attracting  the  attention  of  our  in- 
spectors; but  we  are  generally  provided  with  evidence  showing  that  they  represent  their 
wares  to  be  dairy  or  creamery  butter.  Some  of  the  oleomargarine  compounds  that  come  to 
this  market  are  such  perfect  imitations  of  butter  in  color,  taste,  and  general  appearance  that 
only  an  expert  can  distinguish  the  difference.  Even  they  are  deceived  at  times  by  the  tests  of 
taste  and  smell,  and  have  to  resort  to  more  severe  tests. 

" The  manufacturers  claim,"  continued  Mr.  Van  Valkenburgh,  "that  they  sell  their 
product  for  what  it  is — oleomargarine — and  this  I  am  not  in  position  to  dispute.  But  the  fact 
remains,  and  I  can  easily  prove  it,  that  in  every  possible  way  they  send  their  wares  to  this  and 
other  markets  so  packed  as  to  deceive  the  public.  The  product  of  some  oleomargarine  facto- 
ries comes  in  what  are  known  to  the  trade  as  Orange  County  pails ;  that  of  others  in  hickory- 


32  OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE. 

hooped  half- firkins  called  'Delaware,'  and  of  others  in  varnished  iron-bound  Jamestown 
tubs — packages  that  are  all  used  by  popular  and  reputable  dairymen.  Some  have  even  gone 
so  far  as  to  make  their  product  into  rolls,  packed  in  barrels,  to  simulate  what  is  called  roll 
•butter.  If,  as  they  say,  their  dealings  are  honest  and  above  board,  why  do  they  resort  to  such 
subterfuges  ?  The  fact  of  the  case  is  that  the  manufacturer  makes  a  good  counterfeit  butter, 
and  the  grocer  shoves  it.  Of  the  profits  of  the  former  I  cannot  speak  authoritatively,  but  I 
know  that  the  grocer  makes  a  bigger  profit  than  the  'shover  of  the  queer,'  to  use  the  slang 
-of  the  police,  and  runs  considerable  less  risk. 

"  What  we  need  is  law  requiring  that  oleomargarine  shall  be  placed  on  the  market  in  its 
true  form,  in  which  the  veriest  tyro  could  never  mistake  it  for  dairy  or  creamery  butter.  It  is 
of  a  chalky  white,  while  good  butter  invariably  has  a  yellow  or  golden  tinge  all  its  own.  Thus 
far  most  of  our  prosecutions  have  been  for  selling  oleomargarine  as  butter,  but  the  law  specifi- 
cally forbids  its  sale  when  it  is  artificially  colored  to  resemble  butter,  and  that  is  the  only  form 
.in  which  it  is  marketable." 


CONGRESSIONAL  ACTION. 

The  recent  agitation  of  the  oleomargarine  question  has  had  the  effect  of  awakening  Con- 
gress to  the  enormity  of  the  traffic  in  imitation  butter  throughout  the  country,  and  already 
several  bills  intended  to  curb  and  regulate  it  are  pending  in  that  body.  Among  these  is  one 
that  was  introduced  by  Hon.  A.  J.  Hopkins  of  Illinois,  December  21,  1885,  was  read 
twice,  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  and  ordered  to  be  printed.  It  is  en- 
titled :  "  A  bill  to  amend  title  thirty-five,  entitled  '  Internal  revenue,'  of  the  Revised  Statutes 
of  the  United  States,"  and  provides  that  every  manufacturer  of  adulterated  butter  or  cheese 
shall  furnish  to  the  collector  of  the  district  a  sworn  statement  containing  the  address  of  his 
factory,  and  shall  give  a  bond  of  not  less  than  $5,000  not  to  attempt  in  any  way  to  defraud  the 
government  of  any  tax  on  the  product  he  manufactures ;  that  he  shall  stamp  all  goods  manu- 
factured by  him  before  he  offers  them  for  sale,  and  before  they  are  removed  from  the  factory, 
and  that  he  shall  post  in  a  conspicuous  place  a  certificate,  to  be  obtained  from  the  Internal 
Revenue  collector,  setting  forth  the  capacity  of  his  manufactory.  This  section  (No.  3,4063) 
concludes  with  these  words :  "And  every  person  who  manufactures  adulterated  butter  or 
adulterated  cheese  of  any  description  without  first  giving  bond,  as  herein  required  shall  be 
fined  not  less  than  $100  nor  more  than  $5,000,  and  imprisoned  not  less  than  three  months  nor 
more  than  five  years.  Any  article  or  compound  manufactured,  in  whole  or  in  part,  out  of  any 
oleaginous  substances,  pleomargarine,  suine,  butterine,  beef  fat,  lard,  neutral,  vegetable  oil, 
or  other  foreign  substances  other  than  that  produced  from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  from 
the  same,  and  designed  to  take  the  place  of  butter  or  cheese,  or  to  be  sold  or  offered  for  sale 
as  an  article  of  food,  shall  be  held  to  be  adulterated  butter  or  adulterated  cheese  under  the 
meaning  of  this  chapter,  as  the  case  may  be." 

The  next  section  provides  that  every  manufacturer  of  these  products  shall  display  a  sign 
with  letters  not  less  than  three  inches  long,  giving  his  full  name  and  the  nature  of  his  busi- 
ness. A  violation  of  this  section  entails  a  fine  of  not  less  than  $100  nor  more  than  $500. 

Section  3,4o6d  will  prove  of  special  interest  to  the  retail  dealers  who  persist  in  violating 
the  State  law,  and  should  this  law  pass,  will  be  an  effectual  means  of  destroying  the  unholy 
traffic.  It  reads : 

"  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  every  dealer  in  oleomargarine,  suine,  butterine,  beef  fat,  lard* 
vegetable  oil,  or  neutral  or  material  used  or  to  be  used  in  manufacturing  adulterated  but- 
ter or  adulterated  cheese,  on  demand  of  any  officer  of  internal]  revenue,  to  render  such  officer 
a  true  and  correct  statement,  under  oath,  of  the  quantity  and  amount  of  such  oleomargarine, 
suine,  butterine,  beef  fat,  lard,  vegetable  oil,  or  neutral,  or  materials  sold  or  delivered  to  any 
person  named  in  such  demand;  and  in  case  of  refusal  or  neglect  to  deliver  such  statement,  or 
if  there  is  cause  to  believe  such  statement  to  be  incorrect  or  fraudulent,  the  collector  shall 


OLEOMARGARINE   AND    BUTTERINE.  33 

make  an  examination  of  the  person's  books  and  papers  in  the  manner  provided  in  this  title  in 
relation  to  frauds  and  evasions." 

Another  section  directs  that  all  adulterated  butter  and  cheese  shall  be  packed  in  tubs, 
firkins,  and  packages  that  have  not  theretofore  been  used,  and  the  use  of  an  old  package  in- 
volves a  fine  of  not  less  than  $100  nor  more  than  $1,000,  and  imprisonment  of  not  less  than 
six  months  nor  more  than  two  years.  It  is  provided,  however,  that  nothing  in  this  section 
shall  be  construed  as  preventing  the  sale  of  adulterated  butter  or  cheese  at  retail  by  dealers 
who  have  paid  the  special  tax  as  such,  from  boxes,  tubs,  or  jars  packed,  stamped,  and  branded 
in  the  manner  prescribed  by  law. 

The  next  section  provides  that  each  manufacturer  shall  affix  to  each  box,  tub,  or  other  pack- 
age containing  his  product,  a  printed  label  bearing  his  name,  the  number  and  the  location  of 
his  factory,  and  these  words  : 

"  NOTICE. — The  manufacturer  of  the  adulterated  batter  (or  cheese)  herein  contained  has 
complied  with  all  the  requirements  of  law.  Every  person  is  cautioned,  under  the  penalty  of 
law,  not  to  use  this  box,  tub,  or  jar  (as  the  case  may  be)  for  adulterated  butter  or  cheese 
again."  This  notice  to  be  printed  in  letters  not  less  than  one  inch  long.  A  neglect  to  comply 
with  the  provisions  of  this  section,  or  the  removal  of  a  label  so  affixed  to  any  package,  entails- 
a  fine  of  $50. 

Section  3, 4o6g  provides  that  the  manufacturers  shall  pay  an  Internal  Revenue  tax  of  ten- 
cents  a  pound  on  adulterated  butter  and  three  cents  a  pound  on  adulterated  cheese. 

The  other  sections  of  the  bill,  which  is  voluminous,  provides  for  the  stamps  to  be  used  to 
distinguish  the  bogus  from  the  genuine  article ;  for  the  regulation  of  the  inspection  of  adul- 
terations ;  for  the  collection  of  the  tax ;  for  the  prevention  of  the  use  of  counterfeit  stamps ;. 
for  the  taxing  of  all  spurious  butter  and  cheese  imported  from  other  countries,  and  declares 
that  all  bogus  butter  and  cheese  on  hand  after  the  ist  of  April  next  shall  be  taken  to  have 
been  either  manufactured  or  imported  after  the  passage  of  this  chapter,  and  shall  be  stamped 
accordingly. 

Section  3,4o6p  is  evidently  intended  to  reach  the  retailers.     It  reads  : 

"Every  person  who  purchases  or  receives  for  sale  any  adulterated  butter  or  adulterated 
cheese  which  has  not  been  branded  or  stamped  according  to  law  shall  be  liable  to  a  penalty  of 
$50  for  each  such  offense. " 

A  leading  merchant,  who  is  a  pronounced  enemy  to  oleomargarine  and  all  its  relatives,, 
said  yesterday  when  a  copy  of  this  bill  was  shown  him : 

"I  am  glad  that  this  subject  is  to  come  before  Congress,  for  no  interest  more  pressingly 
demands  national  protection  at  this  time  than  that  of  the  dairy  man ;  but  I  am  afraid  that  this 
law  possesses  too  many  of  the  faults  that  have  rendered  our  State  law  practically  inoperative, 
and  that  it  will  afford  to  the  oleomargarine  men  the  opportunity  to  pose  before  the  public  as 
martyrs.  All  honest  men  concur  in  denouncing  the  traffic  in  counterfeit  butter,  but  my  expe- 
rience with  legislators  teaches  me  that  any  attempt  at  prohibition  is  generally  frowned  upon. 
How  far  this  bill  would  put  the  Government  in  the  attitude  of  acknowledging  oleomargarine 
and  its  allied  compounds  as  legitimate  food  products  I  am  not  prepared  to  say,  for  I  have  not 
had  an  opportunity  to  read  ii  carefully.  I  will  say,  however,  that  it  seems  to  aim  to  bring 
about  just  what  the  leading  men  in  dairy  products  have  long  been  urging,  and  that  is  the  com- 
pelling of  the  men  who  sell  the  stuff  to  sell  it  for  what  it  is.  If  it  can  accomplish  that  pur- 
pose it  will  do  an  immense  amount  of  good,  for  I  am  convinced  that  if  the  people. knew  what 
they  were  buying  they  would  infinitely  prefer  the  natural  product  of  the  cow  to  any  imitation. 
I  think,  however,  that  when  the  bill  comes  up  for  discussion,  and  when  the  national  legisla- 
tors find  how  thoroughly  the  people  are  opposed  to  the  fraudulent  way  in  which  the  oleomar- 
garine traffic  is  carried  on,  and  the  injury  it  is  doing  to  us  at  home  and  abroad,  this  or  some 
similar  measure  will  be  adopted.  It  may  be  that  they  will  prefer  to  consider  the  question  as 
bearing  upon  the  public  health,  and  if  they  do  take  that  view  I  think  that  facts  relative  to  the 
materials  and  processes  used  in  the  manufacture  of  this'stuff  will  be  laid  before  them  that  will 


34  OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE. 

justify  prompt  action.  You  may  be  assured,  however,  that  this  bill  will  meet  with  a  tremen- 
dous lobby  opposition,  for  the  oleomargarine  men  are  rich  and  determined,  and  have  their 
agents  not  only  in  Washington,  but  at  the  capital  of  every  State  in  the  Union.  I  think,  how- 
ever, that  the  pressure  of  public  opinion  can  overcome  even  this  otganized  and  desperate  op- 
position, and  that  if  this  Congress  does  not  act,  the  people  will  take  care  to  elect  another 
that  will." 

State  Dairy  Commissioner  Josiah  K.  Brown,  when  asked  his  opinion  of  Mr.  Hopkins'  bill, 
replied:  "  The  title  of  this  act  is  somewhat  misleading,  because  the  compound  commonly 
known  as  oleomargarine  is  in  no  sense  an  adulterated  butter.  It  is  simply  animal  fat  made  to 
imitate  butter,  and  contains  only  a  small  percentage  of  butter  fat. 

"  L  am  not  prepared  to  express  an  opinion  as  to  the  provisions  of  the  act,  for  I  have 
merely  glanced  at  it ;  but  I  will  say  that  if  the  national  Government  decides  to  take  action 
upon  this  question  of  the  sale  of  sham  butter,  it  would  be  wise  to  intrust  the  enforcement  of 
the  law  to  the  Internal  Revenue  Department,  which  has  the  necessary  machinery  to  under- 
take the  work.  It  would  be  unwise,  in  my  opinion,  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  enact  any  law 
on  this  subject  without  careful  consideration  and  exhaustive  discussion.  If  I  made  any  rec- 
ommendation it  would  be  that  Congress  pass  a  law  compelling  manufacturers,  in  case  the 
bogus  product  is  to  be  sold  at  all,  to  put  before  the  people  an  article  that  could  not  by  any 
possibility  be  mistaken  for  butter— an  article  that  a  child  could  recognize  on  sight  and  without 
explanation.  It  is  a  notorious  fact  that  these  manufacturers  make  and  pack  their  product  so  as 
to  imitate  natural  butter  of  all  kinds,  and  the  trade  they  are  engaged  in  is  a  monstrous  and  in- 
famous swindle  upon  the  consumers. 

"  In  this  State  the  law  takes  the  ground,  and  justly,  as  I  can  prove,  that  the  stuff  is  un- 
wholesome. Section  20  of  chapter  183  reads  :  '  This  act  and  each  section  thereof  is  declared 
to  be  enacted  to  prevent  deception  in  the  sale  of  dairy  products,  and  to  preserve  the  public 
health,  which  is  endangered  by  the  manufacture  of  the  articles  or  substances  herein  regulated 
or  prohibited.'  This  is  as  plain  English  as  can  be  desired  and  nobody  can  dispute  the  right 
vof  a  government  to  protect  the  health  of  its  people." 


THE    LAWS    OF    THE     DIFFERENT    STATES. 

The  last  annual  report  of  Dairy  Commissioner  J.  K.  Brown,  of  New  York,  contains  a  suc- 
cinct presentation  of  the  status  of  dairy  products  in  all  the  leading  States  of  the  Union.  He 
has  not  confined  himself  to  New  York  in  his  researches,  but  has  obtained  information  on  this 
vital  and  important  subject  from  all  parts  of  the  country.  While  Commissioner  Brown  is 
understood  to  hold  strong  prohibition  views,  the  portion  of  his  report  bearing  upon  his  rec- 
ommendations has  not  yet  been  made  public ;  and  whether  he  will  recommend  a  more  strin- 
gent law  or  not  cannot  now  be  definitely  asserted.  The  facts  he  gives  relative  to  the  laws  in 
other  States,  however,  are  well  worthy  of  reproduction  here. 

Of  the  thirty-eight  States  in  the  Union,  all  but  ten  have  laws  governing  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  sham  butter.  These  are  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Kansas,  Kentucky,  Louisiana,  Mis- 
sissippi, Nevada,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Texas,  none  of  which  rank  very  high 
among  the  butter-producing  States.  Of  the  Territories,  Idaho,  Montana,  New  Mexico, 
Utah,  Washington,  and  Wyoming  are  as  yet  unprotected  by  laws  against  the  swindle.  In  all 
the  other  Sta'tes  and  Territories  there  are  laws  guarding  one  or  all  of  the  branches  of  dairy 
production.  In  California,  where  the  butter  produced  in  factories  and  creameries,  not  count- 
ing that  made  by  the  farmers,  amounted  in  1880  to  2,074,344  pounds,  manufacturers  and 
dealers  in  oleomargarine  are  required  to  brand  the  article  with  its  proper  name.  The  law 
also  requires  hotel  keepers,  restaurant  keepers,  and  others  who  feed  the  public  for  pay  to  keep 
posted  up  in  three  conspicuous  places  a  notification  to  customers  that  their  bread  must  be  but- 
tered with  oleomargarine.  Any  caterervwho  sets  out  oleomargarine  without  such  notification 
is  subject  to  fine  or  imprisonment. 


OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERIXK.  35 

Colorado  is  also  well  protected.  A  fine  or  imprisonment  is  the  penalty  for  selling  adulter- 
ated milk  or  that  from  which  the  cream  has  been  taken  or  from  which  the  strippings  have 
been  withheld.  Dealers  may,  however,  sell  skimmed  milk  if  they  inform  their  customers  of 
the  fact  that  it  has  been  skimmed.  Protection  against  oleomargarine  is  sought  to  be  secured 
by  imposing  a  license  of  $1,000  on  any  one  proposing  to  manufacture  it,  and  one  of  $500  on 
the  seller.  A  penalty  of  from  $50  to  $500  is  attached  to  the  manufacture  or  selling  of  oleo- 
margarine as  butter. 

Indiana  has  had  long  standing  in  its  Revised  Statutes  a  law  against  selling  impure  milk  ur 
milk  from  cows  to  which  anything  but  wholesome  and  natural  food  is  given.  The  old  law 
also  prohibits  the  use  of  deleterious  substances  for  coloring  butter  and  cheese,  the  penalties 
ranging  from  $50  to  $500.  In  1883  the  subject  of  oleomargarine  was  taken  up  by  the  Legisla- 
ture, and  a  law  was  passed  requiring  oleomargarine,  in  whatever  shape  it  is  offered  for  sale,  to 
be  branded  as  oleomargarine,  and  fines  from  $10  to  $50  are  imposed  for  failure  to  comply 
with  the  law. 

Iowa  imposes  heavy  penalties  for  adulterating  milk,  requires  oleomargarine  to  be  branded 
or  stamped  with  its  proper  name,  and  prohibits  the  offering  for  sale  of  skimmed-milk,  cheese 
or  any  cheese  containing  an  admixture  of  oleomargarine  or  other  substance,  unless  the  adulter- 
ated product  is  plainly  stamped  with  words  setting  forth  just  what  it  is. 

Maine  prohibits  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine,  and  imposes  a  fine  of  $100 
for  the  first  offense  and  $200  for  each  subsequent  offense. 

Massachusetts  seems  not  to  have  awakened  to  the  subject  of  imitation  butter,  but  it  has 
provisions  for  heavy  fines  for  selling  adulterated  milk. 

Michigan  has  about  the  same  prohibitory  law  that  obtains  in  Maine.  An  act  of  1885  for- 
bids oleomargarine  altogether,  under  a  penalty  of  from  $200  to  $500,  with  imprisonment  not 
to  exceed  one  year. 

In  Minnesota  a  penalty  of  from  $2  to  $200  is  imposed  for  selling  impure  milk,  while  oleo- 
margarine is  altogether  prohibited,  the  penalty  of  violating  the  law  being  from  $100  to  $500. 
The  prohibitory  law  in  Minnesota  was  also  passed  in  1885.  The  Maryland  law  is  substan- 
tially the  same  as  the  Iowa  law,  requiring  any  imitation  of  butter  to  be  branded  with  its 
proper  name.  The  penalties  in  Maryland  are  somewhat  heavier  then  they  are  in  Iowa. 

Missouri  has  taken  the  same  extreme  measure  that  prevails  in  Maine,  Michigan,  and 
Minnesota,  prohibiting  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  imitation  butter,  but  it  emphasizes  its  ob- 
ection  to  the  substance  by  imposing  a  fine  of$i,ooo  and  imprisonment  for  violating  the  law. 

In  Connecticut  and  Delaware  the  law  is  substantially  the  same.  It  aims  to  put  imitation 
butter  on  its  merits,  and  that  is  all  that  is  demanded  by  dealers  in  legitimate  dairy  products. 
In  Connecticut,  however,  the  dealer  is  required  to  post  a  notice  in  his  place  of  business  an- 
nouncing that  he  sells  oleomargarine.  In  Delaware  any  substance  offered  for  sale  as  butter 
that  it  is  not  real  butter  must  be  marked  artificial  butter.  The  fine  for  violation  of  the  law  in 
Connecticut  is  only  $7  or  imprisonment  for  from  ten  to  thirty  days,  but  in  Delaware  the  fine  is 
$50,  with  imprisonment  till  the  same  is  paid. 

In  Illinois  there  is  a  general  law  relative  to  the  adulteration  of  food  or  drink,  which  con- 
tains a  provision  that  where  oleomargarine  is  mixed  with  pure  butter  the  seller  is  required  to 
inform  the  buyer  of  the  fact,  and  he  must  also  inform  him  in  what  proportion  the  two  sub- 
stances are  mixed.  Offenses  against  the  law  increase  for  repetitions  till  a  fine  of  $2,000  is  im- 
posed for  the  third  repetition.  This  law  was  passed  in  1881.  Another  act  was  passed  in  1883 
requiring  operators  in  butter  and  cheese  on  the  co-operative  factory  plan  to  give  bonds  in  the 
sum  of  $6,000  that  accurate  reports  will  be  made  the  first  of  each  month,  a  copy  of  each  to 
be  filed  with  the  clerk  of  the  town  in  which  the  factory  is  situated.  According  to  the  best  in- 
formation to  be  obtained  this  law  is  practically  a  dead  letter,  for  Chicago  turns  out  a  great  pro- 
portion of  the  oleomargarine  products  that  flood  the  country.  There  is  a  movement  among 
merchants  and  dairymen  to  make  this  subject  a  political  issue,  and  the  next  election  may 
greatly  depend  upon  the  attitude  of  legislative  candidates  on  the  bogus  butter  question. 


36  OLEOMARGARINE  AND   BUTTERINE. 

Nebraska  contents  herself  for  the  present  with  guarding  against  the  use  of  impure  milk. 
In  New  Hampshire  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  throw  the  responsibility  for  using  oleomar- 
garine on  the  consumer.  The  law  requires  it  to  be  colored  pink,  and  then  it  leaves  everybody 
at  liberty  to  buy  the  substance  or  leave  it  alone.  In  case  of  prosecution  for  selling  imitation 
bulter  of  the  same  color  as  natural  butter,  or  under  any  other  color  than  pink,  an  analysis  ot 
the  substance  is  admissible  in  court  as  evidence.  Ohio,  by  a  law  of  last  year,  prohibits  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  oleomargarine  as  butter,  but  permits  it  to  be  dealt  in  as  beef  suet. 
Oregon  has  a  law  similar  to  a  bill  that  was  at  one  time  before  the  Legislature  of  this  Stale.  It 
requires  the  public  to  be  notified  at  every  point  of  contact  with  oleomargarine  that  the  sub- 
stance is  oleomargarine.  It  must  in  the  first  place  be  branded  for  market,  then  a  notice  must 
be  posted  up  by  hotel,  restaurant,  and  boarding-house  keepers  that  the  substance  is  used  by 
them  instead  of  good  butter,  and  lastly,  the  bill  of  fare,  if  a  bill  of  fare  is  used,  must  state  that 
the  lubricator  on  the  table  is  oleomargarine,  if  such  be  the  fact. 

In  1883  Pennsylvania  started  out  to  protect  its  citizens  against  oleomargarine,  its  Legisla- 
ture enacting  a  law  requiring  the  imitation  article  to  be  branded  for  what  it  was.  This  pre- 
caution proving  unavailing,  in  1885  a  prohibitory  act  was  passed.  This  law  has  recently  been 
sustained  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  in  the  case  of  the  People  against  Wallace. 

In  Rhode  Island  stamping  with  the  proper  name  is  required,  and  each  seller  of  oleomar- 
garine is  required  to  deliver  to  the  purchaser  a  label  setting  forth  the  true  nature  of  the  sub- 
stance he  has  bought.  In  Tennessee  the  only  requirement  is  that  imitation  butter  shall  b 
made  and  sold  for  what  it  is.  The  Territories  of  Arizona  and  Dakota  have  similar  laws  on 
this  subject,  traffic  in  the  substance  being  allowed  only  on  condition  that  it  is  properly  labeled. 
The  Arizona  law  requires  the  dealer  to  post  up  a  notice  that  he  has  notice  that  he  has  oleo- 
margarine for  sale,  and  he  must,  as  in  Rhode  Island,  deliver  to  the  purchaser  an  oleomarga- 
rine label  with  the  package,  when  that  article  is  bought  in  preference  to  genuine  butter.  The 
laws  of  New  Jersey  are  like  the  present  New  York  State  laws. 

Florida  has  made  it  a  misdemeanor  for  hotel  and  boarding-house  keepers  to  offer  their 
guests  imitation  butter,  and  affixes  a  penalty  of  $100  for  each  offense  against  the  law.  There 
seems  to  be  no  provision  in  that  State  permitting  the  use  of  oleomargarine  as  such. 

THE    DEMORALIZING   EFFECT   UPON   TRADE. 

"There  is  a  phase  of  this  traffic  in  counterfeit  butter,"  said  a  leading  merchant,  "that  has 
scarcely  been  touched  upon,  so  far  as  I  have  seen,  in  any  of  the  exposures  that  have  been  re_ 
cently  made,  and  that  is,  its  demoralizing  effect  upon  trade.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
law  prohibits  the  sale  of  these  counterfeits  as  genuine  butter,  and  yet  we  hear  every  day  of  the 
arrest  of  grocers  or  their  employees  for  selling  them.  Grant,  if  you  please,  that  the  constitu- 
tionality of  the  law  is  questioned,  is  it  not  on  the  statute  books,  and  should  it  not  be  obeyed 
until  the  question  is  definitely  decided?  If  a  law  is  bad  and  iniquitous  in  its  workings,  the 
surest  way  to  secure  its  repeal  is  to  enforce  it.  But  these  dealers,  who  sell  this  product, 
knowing  it  to  be  counterfeit,  for  real  butter,  are  guilty  of  a  crime,  and  the  manufacturers  who' 
furnish  them  with  the  stuff,  well  knowing  that  it  cannot  be  sold  for  what  it  is,  are  morally  re- 
sponsible for  their  violation  of  the  law.  In  many  of  these  cases  the  proprietor  of  the  stores 
escapes  punishment  because  he  was  not  present  when  the  sale  was  made.  Is  not  the  selling 
of  the  goods  in  his  store  presumptive  evidence  that  he  instructed  his  clerk  to  sell  them  ?  What 
can  you  expect  of  young  business  men  who  are  taught  at  the  very  outset  of  their  career  that 
deceit  and  fraud  are  a  part  of  their  duty  to  their  employers  ?  Can  you  look  to  them  in  their 
future  lives  to  be  honest  and  honorable  ?  " 

The  Western  Plowman,  a  conservative  agricultural  journal,  says: 

"  The  failure  to  stop  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  does  not  proceed  from  any  fault  in  the  laws, 
but  from  the  indifference  or  sanction  of  the  people.  The  only  executive  of  municipal  laws 
under  our  form  of  government  is  public  opinion.  If  the  people  sanction  a  law  and  are  thor- 


OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE.  37 

•oughly  convinced  of  the  need  of  it,  they  will  enforce  it ;  otherwise  it  will  be  dead  upon  the 
statute  book.  We  see  this  illustrated  almost  every  day.  Where  public  opinion  is  strongly  in 
favor  of  a  strong  prohibition  law,  it  is  enforced;  where  public  opinion  is  against  it,  it  is  not  en- 
forced. So  with  other  laws.  The  people  are  the  government,  and  have  a  more  direct  power 
in  enforcing  than  in  making  laws.  If  public  opinion  were  strongly  in  favor  of  the  oleomargar- 
ine laws,  those  laws  would  be  enforced.  But  the  farmers,  to  begin  with,  exhibit  no  interest 
in  the  matter.  They  are  sure  of  the  butter  they  eat,  for  they  make  it  themselves  ;  and  they 
fail  to  see  that  oleomargarine  diminishes  the  amount  realized  for  their  surplus  butter.  The 
dairymen  are  too  weak  in  numbers  to  enforce  the  law  themselves  ;  they  must  have  the  sup- 
port of  farmers,  and  this  they  have  not.  The  wise  course  to  pursue  is  not  to  clamor  for  more 
stringent  laws,  but  to  awaken  the  farmers  to  the  fact  that  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  is  inimical 
to  their  interests,  as  well  as  to  the  interests  of  the  dairymen.  And  1T  the  city  consumers  can 
be  made  so  thoroughly  disgusted  with  oleomargarine  as  to  join  the  farmers  and  dairymen  the 
present  oleomargarine  laws  will  be  found  sufficient." 


THURBER,  WHYLAND  &  CO.  ON  BOGUS  BUTTER. 

In  an  interview  in  June  last  Mr.  James  H.  Seymour,  ex-president  of  the  Butter,  Cheese,  and 
Egg  Exchange,  and  one  of  the  leading  men  in  the  trade,  made  public  the  following  letter  from 
Mr.  F.  B.  Thurber,  of  Thurber,  Whyland  &  Co.,  which  sufficiently  indicates  the  attitude  of 
that  great  house  as  regards  the  illicit  traffic  in  counterfeit  butter.  It  should  be  mentioned  here 
that  Mr.  Thurber  has  long  been  noted  as  a  determined  enemy  to  anything  like  deception  in 
trade.  The  following  is  his  letter : 

NEW  YORK,  June  18,  1885. 

James  H.  Seymour,  Esq. — DEAR  SIR:  Referring  to  our  recent  conversation,  I  would  say 
that  I  have  always  been  opposed  to  the  fraudulent  sale  of  oleomargarine,  and  have  contributed 
perhaps  as  much  as  any  one  person  to  compel  its  honest  sale.  There  has  been  a  great  deal  of 
misrepresentation  of  my  position  regarding  this  subject.  It  has  been  represented  that  I  was 
largely  interested  in  oleomargarine  patents,  and  in  the  manufacture  and  fraudulent  sale  of  the 
article,  when  the  fact  is  I  have  never  had  any  interest  in  either.  My  brother  at  one  time  did 
have  an  interest  in  a  small  oleomargarine  factory,  and  owing  to  his  influence  our  firm  at  one 
time  acted  as  selling  agents  for  the  Commercial  Company,  which  was  then  the  largest  factory; 
but  we  always  sold  it  as  oleomargarine,  and  never  in  any  case  as  butter.  This  agency,  how- 
ever, ceased  nearly  three  years  ago,  and  shortly  after  my  brother's  retirement  from  the  head 
of  our  firm  we  stopped  selling  oleomargarine.  And  now,  notwithstanding  that  the  law  pro- 
hibiting its  manufacture  and  sale  has  been  declared  unconstitutional,  I  wish  to  say  that  my 
firm  will  never  sell  it  again,  unless  it  should  become  such  an  article  of  commerce,  commonly 
sold  on  its  merits,  that  we  would  be  compelled  to  keep  it.  I  do  not  think  it  wrong  to  sell  pure 
oleomargarine  for  what  it  is,  for  I  have  always  taken  the  ground  that  I  could  not  see  why  an 
article  that  was  as  much  a  farm  product  as  either  beef  or  butter  should  not  be  sold  for  what  it 
is,  providing  it  is  wholesome.  And  of  the  thousands  of  pounds  consumed  I  have  never  heard 
of  any  ill  effects  resulting  from  its  use.  But  our  other  business  in  magnitude  is  as  a  thousand 
to  one  to  any  interest  we  ever  had  in  oleomargarine,  and  I  do  not  think  it  is  our  duty  to  com- 
bat the  public  prejudice  which  has  been  justly  evoked  by  unscrupulous  dealers  selling  it  as 
butter.  I  have  worked  long  and  earnestly  to  improve  the  quality  and  enforce  the  honest  sale 
of  food  products.  I  believe  that  all  articles  should  be  sold  for  precisely  what  they  are,  and 
I  am  heartily  in  accord  with  you  in  your  opposition  to  the  fraudulent  sale  of  oleomargarine 
and  butterine,  which  are  sold,  not  on  their  merits  as  substitutes  for  butter,  but  as  butter 
itself.  Yours,  very  truly, 

(Signed)  F.  B.  THURBER. 


38  OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE. 

CONVICTIONS  IN  NEW  YORK  AND  BROOKLYN. 

N.  Y.  Star,  January  27,  1886. 

For  a  long  time  past  the  .dealers  engaged  in  the  illegal  sale  of  spurious  butter  and  the  capi- 
talists interested  in  its  manufacture  have  found  fault  with  State  Dairy  Commissioner  Brown 
and  his  able  and  energetic  assistant  in  this  city  and  Kings  county,  Mr.  Van  Valkenburgh,  for 
not  enforcing  the  provisions  of  the  law  of  1885  against  manufacturers  as  well  as  retailers.  The 
fact  that  but  few  of  the  former  were  brought  to  trial  was  used  as  a  conclusive  argument  against 
the  constitutionality  of  the  law,  so  far  as  the  manufacturing  of  the  article  was  concerned,  and 
was  held  to  be  presumptive  proof  that  the  Dairy  Commissioner  considered  the  act  too  weak  to 
bear  enforcement.  Those  who  deceived  themselves  with  these  sophistical  arguments  were 
abundantly  undeceived  yesterday  when  the  case  of  The  People  against  Lipman  Arensberg  was 
called  for  trial  belore  Judge  Moore  in  the  Brooklyn  Court  of  Sessions.  Arensberg  is  a  well- 
known  manufacturer  of  oleomargarine,  and  has  an  extensive  factory  on  Furman  Street.  He  • 
was  represented  in  court  by  Messrs.  Wheeler  H.  Peckham  and  Frederick  Coudert,  and  the 
former  distinguished  himself  in  cross-examining  the  expert  chemists  who  were  called  as  wit- 
nesses on  the  part  of  the  prosecution. 

State  Expert  Thomas  C.  DuBois  testified  that  on  July  16,  1885,  he  visited  Arensberg's  oleo- 
margarine factory,  No.  61  Furman  Street,  and  purchased  three  tubs  of  oleomargarine.  He 
asked  specifically  for  oleomargarine  and  not  for  butter.  The  substance  closely  resembled  nat- 
ural butter.  The  remainder  of  his  testimony  related,  as  is  usual  in  these  cases,  to  what  he  had 
done  with  the  goods  purchased,  and  then  Dr.  Charles  L.  Stillwell,  one  of  the  chemists  of  the 
New  York  Produce  Exchange,  was  placed  upon  the  stand.  He  testified  to  the  receipt  of  the 
sample,  and  said  that  upon  analysis  he  found  it  to  be  oleomargarine.  In  the  cross-examination 
of  this  witness,  which  was  conducted  «by  Mr.  Wheeler  H.  Peckham,  the  distinction  between 
oleomargarine  and  natural  butter  was  very  clearly  described,  and  though  questions  cleverly 
designed  to  confuse  him  were  rapidly  poured  forth  by  Mr.  Peckham,  the  chemist  never  wav- 
ered, but  seemed  rather  more  positive  than  in  his  direct  examination.  He,  too,  described  the 
sample  as  being  colored  in  imitation  and  semblance  of  butter. 

Dr.  Thomas  Gladding,  Dr.  Stillwell's  partner,  and  also  chemist  for  the  Produce  Exchange, 
passed  through  the  ordeal  of  another  searching  cross-examination  with  equal  success,  and  then 
the  defense  offered  to  put  Professor  Morton,  of  Stevens  College,  Hoboken,  on  the  stand,  an- 
nouncing their  intention  to  prove  by  his  testimony  that  oleomargarine  contained  precisely  the 
same  chemical  constituents  as  natural  butter.  The  introduction  of  this  testimony  was  objected 
to  by  the  prosecution,  and  Judge  Moore  announced  that  he  should  rule  out  any  evidence  o» 
this  point  unless  the  defense  were  prepared  to  prove  that  the  substance  sold  was  made  from 
pure  unadulterated  milk,  or  cream  from  the  same.  To  this  Mr.  Coudert  replied  that  the  de- 
fense made  no  such  claim,  and  the  objection  was  sustained. 

The  defense  next  offered  to  prove  that  the  goods  sold  were  wholesome,  and  Judge  Moore 
again  ruled  that  such  evidence  was  inadmissible.  Their  third  proposition  was  to  prove  that 
butter  could  be  made  from  substances  not  derived  from  the  milk  of  the  cow,  and  this  shared 
the  fate  of  its  predecessor,  Judge  Moore  holding  strictly  in  his  ruling  to  the  opinion  of  the 
Court  of  Appeals  in  the  Cipperly  case,  in  which  it  was  held  that  the  courts  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  question  of  the  wisdom  or  the  natural  justice  of  any  particular  law,  and  that  its  power 
to  fix  a  standard  for  food  products  for  the  protection  of  the  public  health  could  not  be  ques- 
tioned. The  defense  took  exceptions  to  the  exclusion  of  this  evidence,  and  there  rested. 
Then  Judge  Moore  fined  the  defendant  $125  or  125  days'  imprisonment,  suspending  the  exe- 
cution of  the  judgment  pending  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals,  and  Arensberg  and  his 
counsel  retired. 

"This  case  is  important,"  said  a  leading  butter  merchant,  "  as  involving  the  disputed  point 
as  to  whether  the  Legislature  has  the  constitutional  right  to  prohibit  the  manufacture  of  any 
substance  in  semblance  or  imitation  of  butter.  The  oleomargarine  manufacturers  nave  long. 


OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE.  39 

boasted  that  sections  7  and  8  of  the  law,  which  cover  this  subject,  would  be  declared  unconsti- 
tutional ;  but  Justice  Learned's  opinion  in  the  Cipperly  case,  indorsed  as  it  was  by  the  Court 
of  Appeals,  will  be  likely  to  open  their  eyes  to  the  fact  that  their  confidence  is  misplaced.  I 
hope  that  the  Dairy  Commissioner  will  now  proceed  actively  against  all  classes  of  violators  of 
the  law,  irrespective  of  their  wealth  or  their  business  standing,  and  that  the  minor  courts  will 
support  him.  I  am  convinced  that  this  conviction  will  have  a  more  decided  and  widespread 
effect  than  any  of  those  that  have  preceded  it." 

Out  of  eight  cases  tried  in  the  Court  of  Special  Sessions,  New  York,  January  20,  1886, 
there  were  five  convictions,  two  acquittals,  and  one  postponement.  This  was  an  encouraging 
result  as  compared  with  former  experiences.  In  nearly  all  these  cases  the  violators  of  the  law 
were  defended  by  counsel  employed  by  an  association  formed  especially  to  protect  grocers  ac- 
cused of  this  crime.  Comment  is  unnecessary.  Without  going  into  the  details  of  the  trials  of 
these  cases,  which  would  not  be  interesting  to  the  general  reader,  it  may  be  said  that  every- 
thing that  ingenuity  could  devise  was  done  by  counsel  to  save  these  men  from  the  punishment 
they  so  richly  deserved. 


THE  WORK  OF  THE  DAIRY  DEPARTMENT. 

"  The  oleomargarine  manufacturers,  who  do  not  relish  the  work  done  by  this  department," 
said  Assistant  Dairy  Commissioner  Van  Valkenburgh  yesterday,  "  assert  that  the  experts  we 
employ  are  spies,  and  insinuate  that  the  work  we  do  is  not  worth  the  money  we  get  for  it, 
To  disprove  this  I  will  give  you  a  resume  of  the  work  done  by  one  of  our  experts  in  the  year 
that  has  just  closed,  and  when  you  hear  it,  and  find  that  his  salary  is  $80  a  month,  I  think  you 
will  frankly  acknowledge  that  his  office  is  no  sinecure.  You  should  remember,  too,  that  to  be  a 
butter  expert  requires  years  of  training  and  experience.  This  man  worked  277  days  out  of 
the  365,  and  in  that  time  bought  1,387  samples  in  different  parts  of  this  city  and  Brooklyn. 
Of  these  he  delivered  thirty-five,  supposed  to  be  spurious,  to  a  chemist  for  analysis.  He  ap- 
peared in  court  during  the  year  1 79  times,  his-  attendance  taking  in  nearly  all  the  police  courts 
from  the  Tombs  to  Harlem  and  those  in  Brooklyn,  and  practically  devoted  121  days  of  the  year 
to  prosecuting  the  frauds  he  had  helped  to  detect.  His  purchases  of  samples  were  made  in  the 
evenings  for  the  reason  that  retailers  would  have  suspected  him  had  he  visited  the  stores  in 
daylight.  Thus  you  see,  what  with  the  pur-chasing  of  samples,  the  attendance  in  court,  and 
the  working  up  of  evidence  for  prosecutions,  his  time  was  well  occupied.  This  expert  caused 
26  arrests,  and  paid  1,720  visits  to  518  butter  and  grocery  stores.  This  is  a  fair  sample  of  the 
work  done  by  the  whole  force.  My  own  opinion  is  that  the  department  should  be  strength- 
ened so  that  the  whole  State  could  be  efficiently  covered.  As  it  is,  only  the  salient  points, 
such  as  New  York,  Brooklyn,  and  Buffalo,  are  provided  with  inspectors,  and  in  many  parts 
of  the  State  violators  of  the  law  can  pursue  their  nefarious  traffic  without  much  fear  of  official 
interference.  Of  the  hundreds  of  cases  that  have  come  under  my  personal  observation,  at 
least  98  per  cent,  have  been  sales  of  these  unwholesome  compounds  for  and  as  butter.  And 
yet,  in  a  majority  of  them,  the  defendants  declare  under  oath,  either  that  they  sold  the  stuff 
without  knowing  that  it  was  oleomargarine,  or  that  they  told  the  purchaser  what  it  was. 
Many  of  our  inspectors  reported  that  on  their  first  visit  to  a  store  they  failed  to  obtain  the  imi- 
tation butter,  but  that  on  the  second  or  third  they  seldom  failed.  We  can  do  nothing  with 
the  manufacturers,  for  while  they  are  morally  responsible  for  the  sale  of  the  stuff  they  evade 
legal  responsibility  for  selling  it  for  what  it  is ;  and  if  we  ever  proceed  against  them,  it  must 
be  under  that  clause  of  the  law  which  forbids  the  coloring  of  their  food  product  to  simulate 
dairy  butter.  We  must  confine  ourselves,  therefore,  to  the  retailers." 

Since  the  above  interview  was  printed  a  manufacturer  in  Brooklyn  has  been  convicted,  the 
rulings  of  the  Court  being  based  on  the  decision  in  the  Apperby  case  (which  is  duly  detailed 
in  the  chapter  on  decisions),  and  now  there  is  every  probability  that  manufacturers  will  be 
vigorously  prosecuted,  so  far  as  New  York  is  concerned. 


IMPORTANT    DECISIONS. 

The  following  are  the  most  important  decisions  thus  far  rendered  as  to  the  constitu- 
tionality of  prohibitive  laws.  The  decision  in  the  first  case  mentioned — that  of  The  People 
against  Morris  Marx,  was  seized  upon  by  the  dishonest  dealers  as  a  pretext  for  continuing 
their  swindle,  but  subsequent  action  by  the  Courts  convinced  them  that  they  had  acted  pits 
cipitately  and  a  number  of  convictions  under  other  sections  of  the  act  persuaded  them  thai 
the  law  was  still  in  force. 


40  OLEOMARGARINE   AND    BUTTERINE. 

THE    MARX  CASE. 

COURT  OF  APPEALS. 
THE  PEOPLE, 

Respondent, 
agst. 
MORRIS  MARX, 

Appellant. 

RAPALLO,  J. — The  defendant  was  convicted  in  the  Court  of  General  Sessions,  of  the  City 
and  County  of  New  York,  of  a  violation  of  the  Sixth  Section  of  an  act  entitled,  "  An  Act  to 
.prevent  deception  in  sales  of  dairy  products  "  (chap.  202  of  the  Laws  of  1884). 

On  appeal  to  the  General  Term  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  First  Department  the  convic- 
tion was  affirmed,  and  the  defendant  now  appeals  to  this  court  from  the  judgment  of  affirm- 
ance. 

The  main  ground  of  the  appeal  is  that  the  section  in  question  is  unconstitutional  and  void. 

The  section  provides  as  follows  :  "  Sec.  6.  No  person  shall  manufacture  out  of  any  oleag- 
inous substances,  or  any  compound  of  the  same,  other  than  that  produced  from  unadulter- 
ated milk,  or  of  cream  from  the  same,  any  article  designed  to  take  the  place  of  butter  or  cheese 
produced  from  pure  or  unadulterated  milk  or  cream  of  the  same,  or  shall  sell  or  offer  to  sell 
he  same  as  an  article  of  food.  This  provision  shall  not  apply  to  pure  skim-milk  cheese,  pro- 
duced from  pure  skim  milk." 

The  rest  of  the  section  subjects  to  heavy  punishments  by  fine  and  imprisonment  "  who- 
ever violates  the  provisions  of  this  section." 

The  indictment  charged  the  defendant  with  having,  on  the  3ist  of  October,  1884,  at  the 
City  of  New  York,  sold  one  pound  of  a  certain  article  manufactured  out  of  divers  oleaginous 
substances  and  compounds  thereof,  other  than  those  produced  from  unadulterated  milk,  to  one 
J.  M.,  as  an  article  of  food,  the  article  so  sold  being  designed  to  take  the  place  of  butter  pro- 
duced from  pure  unadulterated  milk  or  cream,  It  is  not  charged  that  the  article  so  sold  was 
represented  to  be  butter,  or  was  sold  as  such,  or  that  there  was  any  intent  to  deceive  or  de- 
fraud, or  that  the  article  was  in  any  respect  unwholesome  or  deleterious,  but  simply  that  it  was 
an  article  designed  to  take  the  place  of  butter  made  from  pure  milk  or  cream. 

On  the  trial,  the  prosecution  proved  the  sale  by  the  defendant  of  the  article  known  as  oleo- 
margarine or  oleomargarine  butter.  That  it  was  sold  at  about  half  the  price  of  ordinary  dairy 
butter.  The  purchaser  testified  that  the  sale  was  made  at  a  kind  of  factory,  having  on  the  out- 
side a  large  sign,  "  oleomargarine."  That  he  knew  he  could  not  get  butter  there,  but  knew 
that  oleomargarine  was  sold  there,  and  the  District-Attorney  stated  that  it  would  not  be 
claimed  that  there  was  any  fraudulent  intent  on  the  part  of  the  defendant,  but  that  the  whole 
claim  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution  was  that  the  sale  of  oleomargarine,  as  a  substitute  for  dairy 
butter,  was  prohibited  by  the  statute. 

On  the  part  of  the  defendant,  it  was  proved  by  distinguished  chemists  that  oleomargarine 
was  composed  of  the  same  elements  as  dairy  butter.  That  the  only  difference  between  them 
was  that  it  contained  a  smaller  proportion  of  a  fatty  substance  known  as  butyrine.  That  this 
butyrine  exists  in  dairy  butter  only  in  a  small  proportion — from  three  to  six  per  cent.  That  it 
exists  in  no  other  substance  than  butter  made  from  milk,  and  is  introduced  into  oleomargarine 
butter  by  adding  to  the  oleomargarine  stock  some  milk,  cream,  or  butter,  and  churning,  and 
when  this  is  done  it  has  all  the  elements  of  natural  butter,  but  there  must  always  be  a  smaller 
percentage  of  butyrine  in  the  manufactured  product  than  in  butter  made  from  milk.  The  only 
effect  of  the  butyrine  is  to  give  flavor  to  the  butter,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  whole- 
someness.  That  the  oleaginous  substances  in  the  oleomargarine  are  substantially  identical 
with  those  produced  from  milk  or  cream.  Professor  Chandler  testified  that  the  only  differ- 
ence between  the  two  articles  was  that  dairy  butter  had  more  butyrine.  That  oleomargarine 
contained  not  over  one  per  cent,  of  that  substance,  while  dairy  butter  might  contain  four  or 
five  percent.;  and  that  if  four  or  five  percent,  of  butyrine  were  added  to  the  oleomargarine, 
there  would  be  no  difference;  it  would  be  butter;  irrespective  of  the  sources,  they  would  be 
the  same  substances.  According  to  the  testimony  of  Professor  Morton,  whose  statement 
was  not  controverted  or  questioned,  oleomargarine,  so  far  from  being  an  article  devised  for 
purposes  of  deception  in  trade,  was  devised  in  1872  or  1873  by  an  eminent  French  scientist 
who  had  been  employed  by  the  French  government  to  devise  a  substitute  for  butter. 

Further  testimony  to  the  character  of  the  article  being  offered,  the  District  Attorney  an- 
nounced that  he  did  not  propose  to  controvert  that  already  given.  Testimony  having  been 
given  to  the  effect  that  oleomargarine  butter  was  precisely  as  wholesome  as  dairy  butter,  it  was, 
on  motion  of  the  District  Attorney,  stricken  out,  and  the  defendant's  counsel  excepted.  The 
broad  ground  was  taken  at  the  trial,  and  boldly  maintained  on  the  argument  of  this  appeal, 
that  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  any  oleaginous  compound,  however  pure  and  wholesome,  as  an 


OLEOMARGARINE  AND   BUTTERINE.  41 

.article  of  food,  if  it  is  designed  to  take  the  place  of  dairy  butter,  is  by  this  act  made  a  crime. 
The  result  of  the  argument  is  that  if,  in  the  progress  of  science,  a  process  is  discovered  prepar- 
ing of  beef-tallow,  lard,  or  any  other  oleaginous  substance,  and  communicating  to  it  a  palata- 
ble flavor  so  as  to  render  it  serviceable  as  a  substitute  for  dairy  butter,  and  equally  nutritious 
and  valuable,  and  the  article  can  be  produced  at  a  comparatively  small  cost,  which  will  place 
it  within  the  reach  of  those  who  cannot  afford  to  buy  dairy  butter,  the  ban  of  this  statute  is 
upon  it.  Whoever  engages  in  the  business  of  manufacturing  or  selling  the  prohibited  product 
is  guilty  of  a  crime ;  the  industry  must  be  suppressed  ;  those  who  could  make  a  livelihood  by 
it  are  deprived  of  that  privilege  The  capital  invested  in  the  business  must  be  sacrificed,  and 
?uch  of  the  people  of  the  State  as  cannot  afford  to  buy  dairy  butter  must  eat  their  bread  unbut- 
tered. 

The  references  which  have  been  here  made  to  the  testimony  on  the  trial  are  not  with  the 
view  of  instituting  any  comparison  between  the  relative  merits  of  oleomargarine  and  dairy 
butter,  but  rather  as  illustrative  of  the  character  and  effect  of  the  statute  whose  validity  is  in 
question.  The  indictment  upon  which  the  defendant  was  convicted  does  not  mention  oleomar- 
garine, neither  does  the  section  (Sec.  6)  of  the  statute,  although  the  article  is  mentioned  in 
other  statutes  which  will  be  referred  to.  All  the  witnesses  who  have  testified  as  to  the  quali- 
ties of  oleomargarine  may  be  in  error,  still  that  would  not  change  a  particle  the  nature  of  the 
question  or  the  principles  by  which  the  validity  of  the  act  is  to  be  tested. 

Section  6  is  broad  enough  in  its  terms  to  embrace  not  only  oleomargarine  but  any  other 
'Compound,  however  wholesome,  valuable,  or  cheap,  which  has  been  or  may  be  discovered  or 
devised  forthe  purpose  of  being  used  as  a  substitute  for  butter.  Every  such  product  is  rigidly 
excluded  from  manufacture  or  sale  in  this  State. 

One  of  the  learned  j  udges  who  delivered  opinions  at  the  General  Term  endeavored  to  sus- 
tain the  act  on  the  ground  that  it  was  intended  to  prohibit  the  sale  of  any  artificial  compound 
as  butter  or  cheese  made  from  unadulterated  milk  or  cream ;  that  it  was  that  design  to  deceive 
which  the  law  rendered  criminal.  If  that  were  a  correct  interpretation  of  the  act,  we  should 
concur  with  the  learned  judge  in  his  conclusion  as  to  its  validity,  but  we  could  not  concur  in 
his  further  view  that  such  an  offense  was  charged  in  the  indictment  or  proved  upon  the  trial. 
The  express  concessions  of  the  prosecuting  officer  are  to  the  contrary.  We  do  not  think  that 
section  six  is  capable  of  the  construction  claimed.  The  prohibition  is  not  of  the  manufacture 
•or  sale  of  an  article  designed  as  an  imitation  of  dairy  butter  or  cheese,  or  intended  to  be  passed 
off  as  such,  but  of  an  article  designed  to  take  the  place  of  dairy  butter  or  cheese.  The  artificial 
product  might  be  green,  red  or  white,  instead  of  yellow,  and  totally  dissimilar  in  appearance 
to  ordinary  dairy  butter,  yet  it  might  be  designed  as  a  substitute  for  butter,  and  if  so  would  fall 
within  the  prohibition  of  the  statute.  Simulation  of  butter  is  not  the  act  prohibited.  There 
are  other  statutory  provisions  fully  covering  that  subject. 

Chapter  215  of  -he  Laws  of  1882,  entitled  "  An  act  to  regulate  the  manufacture  and  sale  of 
oleomargarine,  or  any  form  of  imitation  butter  and  lard,  or  any  form  of  imitation  cheese,  for 
the  prevention  of  fraud  and  the  better  protection  of  the  public  health,"  by  its  first  section  pro- 
hibits the  introduction  of  any  substance  into  imitation  butter  or  cheese  for  the  purpose  of  im- 
parting thereto  a  color  resembling  that  of  yellow  butter  or  cheese.  The  second  section  pro- 
"hibits  the  sale  of  oleomargarine  or  imitation  butter  thus  colored,  and  the  third  section  prohibits 
the  sale  of  any  article  in  semblance  of  natural  cheese  not  the  legitimate  product  of  the  dairy 
unless  plainly  marked  " imitation  cheese." 

Chapter  238  of  the  Laws  of  1882  is  entitled  "  An  Act  for  the  protection  of  dairymen,  and  to 
prevent  deception  in  the  sales  of  butter  and  cheese,"  and  provides  (Sec.  i)  that  every  person 
who  shall  manufacture  for  sale,  or  offer  for  sale,  or  export  any  article  in  semblance  of  butter  or 
cheese,  not  the  legitimate  product  of  the  dairy,  must  distinctly  and  durably  stamp  on  the  side  of 
«very  cheese,  or  on  the  top  and  side  of  every  tub,  firkin,  or  package,  the  words  "oleomargarine 
butter  ;"  or  if  containing  cheese,  "  imitation  cheese,"  and  Chapter  246  of  the  Laws  of  1882,  en- 
titled "An  act  to  prevent  fraud  in  the  sale  of  oleomargarine,  butterine,  suine,  or  other  sub- 
stances not  butter,"  makes  it  a  misdemeanor  to  sell  at  wholesale  or  retail  any  of  the  above  arti- 
cles, representing  them  to  be  butter. 

These  enactments  seem  to  cover  the  entire  subject  of  fraudulent  imitations  of  butter,  and  of 
sales  of  other  compounds  as  dairy  products,  and  they  are  not  repealed  by  the  act  of  1884, 
although  that  act  contains  an  express  repeal  of  nine  other  statutes,  eighjt  of  which  are  directed 
against  impure  or  adulterated  dairy  products,  and  one  against  the  use  of  certain  coloring  matter 
in  oleomargarine.  The  provisions  of  this  last  act  are  covered  by  one  of  the  acts  of  1882,  above 
cited,  and  the  provisions  of  the  repealed  act  in  relation  to  dairy  products  are  covered  by  sub- 
stituted provisions  in  the  act  of  1884,  but  the  statutes  directed  against  fraudulent  simulations 
of  butter,  and  the  sale  of  any  such  simulations  as  dairy  butter,  are  left  to  stand.  Further  stat- 
utes to  the  same  effect  were  enacted  in  1885.  Consequently,  if  the  provisions  of  section  six 
should  be  held  invalid,  there  would  still  be  ample  protection  in  the  statutes  against  fraudulent 
imitations  of  dairy  butter,  or  sales  of  such  imitations  as  genuine. 


42  OLEOMARGARINE  AND   BUTTERINE. 

It  appears  to  us  quite  clear  that  the  object  and  effect  of  the  enactment  under  consideratic::1 
was  not  to  supplement  the  existing  provisions  against  fraud  and  deception  by  means  of  imita- 
tions of  dairy  butter,  but  to  take  a  further  and  bolder  step,  and  absolutely  prohibiting  the 
manufacture  or  sale  of  any  article  which  could  be  used  as  a  substitute  for  it,  however  openfy  and 
fairly  the  character  of  the  substitute  might  be  avowtd  and  published,  to  drive  the  substituted 
article  from  the  market,  and  protect  those  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  dairy  products 
against  the  competition  of  cheaper  substances,  capable  of  being  applied  to  the  same  uses  as 
articles  of  food. 

The  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  frankly  meets  this  view,  and  claims  in  his  points,, 
as  he  did  orally  upon  the  argument,  that  even  if  it  were  certain  that  the  sole  object  of  the 
enactment  was  to  protect  the  dairy  industry  in  this  State  against  the  substitution  of  a  cheaper 
article  made  from  cheaper  material,  this  would  not  be  beyond  the  power  of  the  Legislature. 

This,  we  think,  is  the  real  question  presented  in  the  case.  Conceding  that  the  only  limits 
upon  the  legislative  power  of  the  State  are  those  imposed  by  the  State  constitution  and  that  of 
the  United  States,  we  are  called  upon  to  determine  whether  or  not  those  limits  are  trans- 
gressed by  an  enactment  of  this  description.  These  limitations  upon  legislative  power  are 
necessarily  very  general  in  their  terms,  but  are  at  the  same  time  very  comprehensive. 

The  Constitution  of  the  State  provides  (Art.  I,  Sec.  i)  that  no  member  of  this  State  shall 
be  disfranchised,  or  deprived  of  any  of  the  rights  and  privileges  secured  to  any  citizen  thereof, 
unless  by  the  law  of  the  land,  or  the  judgment  of  his  peers.  Section  6  of  Article  I  provides 
that  no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due  process  of  law,  and 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  provides  that  "  no  State 
shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which  shall  abridge  the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  nor  shall  any  State  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without 
due  process  of  law,  nor  deny  to  any  person  within  its  jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the 
laws."  These  constitutional  safeguards  have  been  so  thoroughly  discussed  in  recent  cases 
that  it  would  be  superfluous  to  do  more  than  refer  to  the  conclusions  which  have  been  reached, 
bearing  upon  the  question  now  under  consideration.  Among  these  no  proposition  is  now. 
more  firmly  settled  than  that  it  is  one  of  the  fundamental  rights  and  privileges  of  every 
American  citizen  to  adopt  and  follow  such  lawful  industrial  pursuit,  not  injurious  to  the  com- 
munity, as  he  may  see  fit  (Live  Stock  Association  vs.  The  Crescent  City,  etc.,  I  Abb.,  U.  S. 
R.,  898;  16  Wall.,  156;  Corfieldvs.  Coryell,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  R.,  380;  Matter  of  Jacobs,  9$ 
N.  Y.,,  98).  The  term  "liberty,"  as  protected  by  the  Constitution,  is  not  cramped  into  a 
mere  physical  restraint  of  the  person  of  the  citizen,  as  by  incarceration,  but  is  deemed  to  em- 
brace the  right  of  man  to  be  free  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  faculties  with  which  he  has  been 
endowed  by  his  Creator,  subject  only  to  such  restraints  as  are  necessary  for  the  common  wel- 
fare. In  the  language  of  Andrews,  J.,  in  Bertholf  vs.  O'Reilly  (74  N.  Y.,  515),  the  right 
to  liberty  embraces  the  right  of  man  "to  exercise  his  faculties  and  to  follow  a  lawful  avoca- 
tion for  the  support  of  life ;"  and  as  expressed  by  Earl,  J.,  in  In  re  Jacobs.  "  One  may  be 
deprived  of  his  liberty  and  his  constitutional  right  ther  to  violated,  without  the  actual  restraint 
of  his  person.  Liberty  in  its  broad  sense,  as  understood  in  this  country,  means  the  right  not 
only  of  freedom  from  servitude,  imprisonment,  or  restraint,  but  the  right  of  one  to  use  his 
faculties  in  all  lawful  ways,  to  live  and  work  where  he  will,  to  earn  his  livelihood  in  any  lawful: 
calling  and  to  pursue  any  lawful  trade  or  avocation." 

Who  will  have  the  temerity  to  say  that  these  constitutional  principles  are  not  violated  by 
an  enactment  which  absolutely  prohibits  an  important  branch  of  industry  for  the  sole  reason 
that  it  competes  with  another,  and  may  reduce  the  price  of  an  article  of  food  for  the  humaa 
race. 

"  Measures  of  this  kind  are  dangerous  even  to  their  promoters.  If  the  argument  of  the 
respondents  in  support  of  the  absolute  power  of  the  Legislature  to  prohibit  one  branch  of  in- 
dustry for  the  purpose  of  protecting  another  with  which  it  competes  can  be  sustained,  why- 
could  not  the  oleomargarine  manufacturers,  should  they  obtain  sufficient  power  to  influence  or 
control  the  legislative  councils,  prohibit  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  dairy  products  ?  Would1 
arguments  then  be  found  wanting  to  demonstrate  the  invalidity  under  the  Constitution  of  such1 
an  act?  The  principle  is  the  same  in  both  ca«es.  The  number  engaged  upon  each  side  of 
the  controversy  cannot  influence  the  question  here.  Equal  rights  to  all  are  what  are  intended! 
to  be  secured  by  the  establishment  of  constitutional  limits  to  legislative  power,  and  impartial 
tribunals  to  enforce  them. 

"Illustrations  might  be  indefinitely  multiplied  of  the  evils  which  would  result  from  legisla- 
tion which  should  exclude  one  class  of  citizens  from  industries  lawful  in  other  respects,  in> 
order  to  protect  another  class  against  competition.  We  cannot  doubt  that  such  legislation  is 
violative  of  the  letter  as  well  as  of  the  spirit  of  the  Constitutional  provisions  before  referred; 
to,  nor  that  such  is  the  character  of  the  enactment  under  which  the  appellant  was  convicted. 

"The  judgment  of  the  General  Term  of  the  Court  of  Sessions  should  be  reversed.  All 
concur."  (A  copy.)  H.  E.  SICKELS,  reported  per.  C. 


OLEOMARGARINE  AND  BUTTERINE.  43, 

THE  CIPPERLY  CASE. 

(AT.  Y.  Star,  January  24,  1886.) 

The  news  of  the  reversal  by  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in 
the  case  of  the  People  against  Arthur  Cipperly  of  Albany  was  received  by  the  oleomargarine- 
men  with  dismay  and  by  the  advocates  of  honest  butter  with  unmitigated  satisfaction.  While 
the  Cipperly  case  bears  on  the  sale  of  adulterated  milk,  the  decision  is  regarded  as  thoroughly 
sustaining  the  constitutionality  of  the  law  of  1885,  under  which  the  prosecutions  of  bogus 
butter  dealers  have  been  conducted.  In  handing  down  their  decision  the  Court  of  Appeals 
used  the  following  words  : 

"Upon  the  argument  of  this  case,  we  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  respondent  failed  to 
show  any  ground  upon  which  the  judgment  appealed  from  could  be  supported;  but,  in  view  of" 
the  importance  of  the  question  raised,  and  difference  in  the  court  below  concerning  it,  topic 
further  time  for  its  consideration.  We  still  think  the  judgment  wrong,  and,  for  reasons  suffi- 
ciently stated  by  Judge  Learned,  who  dissented  in  the  General  Term  of  the  Supreme  Court,, 
the  judgment  of  that  court  should  be  reversed  and  the  judgment  of  the  Special  Sessions 
affirmed." 

All  concurred  except  Justice  Miller,  who  was  absent.  Justice  Learned's  dissenting  opin- 
ion, upon  which  the  decision  of  the  court  was  based,  is  a  voluminous  document,  and  opens-, 
with  the  assertion  that  the  principle  of  the  case  of  Wyndham  vs.  People,  as  to  the  destruction 
of  existing  property,  is  not,  in  his  opinion,  applicable  to  the  present  case.  It  would  be  a 
greater  stretch  of  that  principle 'to  say  that  the  statute  in  question  deprived  persons  who  owned 
cows  at  the  time  of  its  passage  of  their  property,  because  it  interfered  with  or  even  de- 
prived them  of  the  use  of  the  milk  which  the  cows  might  yield.  The  opinion  continues : 

"But  the  defendant  takes  the  broader  ground  that  the  Legislature  cannot,  under  the  Con- 
stitution, prohibit  the  sale  of  milk  drawn  from  healthy  cows  which,  in  its  natural  state,  falls 
below  the  standard  fixed  by  the  acts,  unless  such  milk,  or  the  article  made  from  it,  is  in  fact 
unwholesome  or  dangerous  to  public  health.  How  is  that  question  of  fact  to  be  determined? 
The  Court  cannot  take  judicial  notice  whether  the  milk  below  the  standard  is  or  is  not  whole- 
some or  dangerous  to  public  health.  Is  that  to  be  a  question  for  the  jury?  If  so,  the  Court 
must  charge  a  jury,  in  each  case,  that  if  they  find  milk  below  that  standard  to  be  unwholesome 
then  the  statute  is  constitutional.  If  they  find  it  to  be  unwholesome,  than  the  statute  is  uncon- 
stitutional. Evidently  a  constitutional  question  cannot  be  settled,  or  rather  unsettled,  in  this> 
way.  The  constitutionality  would  vary  with  the  varying  judgment  of  juries. 

"  Either  then  the  Legislature  can,  under  the  Constitution,  forbid  the  sale  of  milk  below  a 
certain  standard,  whether  such  milk  be  in  fact  wholesome  or  not,  or  else  they  cannot  do  this- 
whether  such  milk  be  in  fact  wholesome  or  not.  If  they  may  fix  a  standard,  they  must  judge 
whether  or  not  milk  below  that  standard  is  wholesome.  The  courts  can  not  review  that 
judgment.  '  *  It  cannot,  then,  be  material  to  the  present  question  whether  milk  below 
the  standard  fixed  by  the  statute  is  or  is  not  wholesome.  The  question  must  be  whether  the 
Legislature  can  establish  a  standard  of  purity.  *  *  *  Now,  it  is  very  plain  that  courts 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  the  wisdom  or  even,  according  to  our  courts,  with  the 
natural  justice  of  any  particular  law.  Courts  cannot  say  that  the  Legislature  has  the  constitu- 
tional power  to  pass  a  judicious  law  to  regulate  the  sale  of  articles  of  food,  but  have  no  con- 
stitutional power  to  pass  an  injudicious  law  on  that  subject.  An  examination  of  the  present 
law  plainly  shows  that  it  relates  to  and  is  appropriate  to  promote  the  public  health.  Whether 
its  details  are  wise  we  do  not  know.  But  its  object  is  evident  and  good.  *  *  *  What 
determined  the  Legislature  to  fix  this  standard  we  do  not  know.  But  it  may  be  supposed  that 
different  kinds  of  food  produce  different  degrees  of  richness  in  milk.  It  may  be 
known  to  the  Legislature  that  this  watery  milk  supplied  as  food  to  children,  cheats  them 
with  the  appearance  of  nourishment,  and  deprives  them  of  that  nutritious  food  which  they 
need.  It  may  be  known  to  legislators,  then,  that  milk  below  the  standard  which  they  fix  by 
this  law  is  unsuitable  for  food  and  should  not  be  sold.  At  any  rate,  all  this  is  a  matter  for 
the  Legislature.  *  *  *  The  law  is  general  in  its  scope;  not  limited  to  two  cities.  The 
only  fault  to  be  found  is  that  it  may  be  unwise,  as  the  defendant  claims,  to  make  a  certain  stand- 
ard the  test,  and  to  forbid  the  sale  of  milk  below  that  test.  Whether  that  is  wise  or  not,  it  is- 
not  for  us  to  say.  It  is  a  provision  evidently  intended  for  the  public  health.  No  other  in- 
tention can  be  gathered  from  the  law.  Plainly  no  other  existed,  and  in  view  of  the  difficulties 
which  surround  the  attempt  to  secure  wholesome  milk  to  the  people,  it  is  by  no  means  certain 
that  the  establishing  of  a  definite  standard  is  not  a  judicious  provision." 

With  regard  to  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  the  Marx  case,  the  oleomargarine 
test  suit,  the  opinion  says : 

"  In  other  words,  the  object  of  that  law,  like  that  of  a  protective  tariff,  was  to  protect  the- 
home  industry  of  the  farmer  against  the  city  industry  of  the  manufacturer,  and  the  Court  held 
the  law  to  be  void,  because  it  prohibits  an  important  branch  of  industry  for  the  sole  reason: 


44  OLEOMARGARINE  AN  13   BUTTERINE. 

that  it  competes  with  another  and  may  reduce  the  price  of  an  article  of  food.  Evidently  the 
present  law  has  no  such  characteristics.  It  is  not  intended  to  prohibit  any  branch  of  industry 

•  or  to  prevent  competition.     Its  sole  object  is  to  regulate  and  control   the  quality  of  a  certain 
article  of  food  in  the  interest  of  ;the  health  of  the  people;  and  if  the  Legislature,  knowing  the 
difficulty  of  guarding  against  the  watering  or  other  adulterations  of  milk,  deem  it  best  to  fix  a 
standard  of  richness,  I  think  this  is  within  their  power." 

A  leading  lawyer,  who  has  made  a  special  study  of  oleomargarine  legislation,  said  last  even- 
ing: "  There  are  three  important  points  decided  by  this  opinion  of  Judge  Learned,  indorsed 
by  the  Court  of  Appeals,  thai:  are  worthy  of  consideration.  These  are  :  First — That  the  Leg- 
islature has  the  power  to  prevent  the  sale  of  unwholesome  food  and  drink  for  human  beings. 
Second — That  the  Legislature  is  the  judge  of  what  is  unwholesome,  and  the  courts  can  only 

•  declare  a  law  relating  to  food  and  drink  unconstitutional  when  the  Legislature  has  exceeded  its 
powers  to  such  an  extent  that  it  appears  on  the  face  of  the  statute.  No  evidence  can  be  given 

.'to  prove  that  the  forbidden  articles  are  not  unwholesome;  and  third — That  those  who  deal  in 
dairy  products  must  see  that  they  do  not  violate  the  law.  They  cannot  prove  for  any  purpose 

•  that  they  were  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  they  were  selling  imitation  goods.     In  the  Cipperly 
-case  the  evidence  showed  not  only  that  the  man  did  not  know  he  was  selling  adulterated  milk, 

but  tha  the  milk  was  sold  just  as  it  came  from  the  cow.  There  could  not  be  a  stronger  case 
on  the  want  of  knowledge  than  this.  This  opinion  declares  that  want  of  knowledge  of  the  law 
is  no  defense.  Now,  the  query  is  a  logical  one :  If  the  Legislature  has  the  power  to  fix  a  stand- 
ard for  milk,  why  has  it  not  a  similar  power  with  regard  to  butter  ?" 

Philip  Laracy,  of  No.  327  Tenth  Avenue,  and  Henry  Rothman,  of  No.  564  Eleventh  Avenue, 
grocers,  were  arraigned  yesterday  before  Justice  Duffy  at  the  Jefferson  Market  Police  Court, 
ior  selling  oleomargarine  as  butter.  They  were  held  in  $200  bail,  the  former  electing  to  be 
tried  in  the  Court  of  General  Sessions  and  the  latter  in  Special  Sessions. 


AN  IMPORTANT  PENNSYLVANIA  DECISION. 

One  of  the  most  important  decisions  with  regard  to  the  constitutionality  of  legislative  ac- 
tion for  the  protection  of  publi*  health  that  has  recently  been  made  was  that  rendered  by  Judge 
J.  W.  Simonton,  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania,  in  the  case  of  the  Commonwealth  against 
W.  L.  Powell,  a  Harrisburg  grocer.  This  tradesman,  confident  that  the  prohibitive  act  passed 
May  21,  1885,  would  be  declared  unconstitutional  on  appeal,  deliberately  sold  butterine  as  an 
article  of  food.  He  was  arrested  and  tried  in  the  Court  of  Quarter  Sessions  in  Dauphin  County 
upon  an  indictment  based  upon  Section  I  of  the  act,  which  reads : 

"  No  person,  firm,  or  corporate  body  shall  manufacture  out  of  any  oleaginous  substance, 
or  any  compound  of  the  same  other  than  that  produced  from  pure,  unadulterated  milk  or 
•  cream  from  the  same,  or  any  imitation  or  adulterated  butter  or  cheese,  nor  sell  or  offer  for  sale, 
or  have  in  his  possession  with  intent  to  sell  the  same,  as  an  article  of  food." 

It  was  agreed  for  the  purposes  of  the  trial  that  the  defendant  sold  to  the  prosecuting  wit- 
ness, in  the  city  of  Harrisburg,  July  10,  1885,  as  an  article  of  food,  two  original  packages,  con- 
taining an  oleaginous  substance  and  compound  other  than  that  produced  from  pure,  unadulter- 
ated milk  and  cream  from  the  same,  and  designed  to  take  the  place  of  butter,  and  that  these 
packages  were  sold  as  butterine,  and  not  as  butter.  It  was  further  agreed  that  the  defendant 
had  100  pounds  of  this  substance  in  his  possession,  and  intended  to  sell  the  same,  and  the 
identity  of  the  packages  produced  in  court  was  admitted  by  the  defendant.  With  this  agree- 
ment and  admission  the  Commonwealth  rested,  and  the  defendant  endeavored  to  introduce 
expert  testimony  as  to  the  wholesomeness  of  the  compound.  To  this  objection  was  made,  and 
it  was  excluded.  The  case  was  then  submitted  to  the  jury,  a  verdict  of  guilty  rendered,  and 
the  defendant  moved  for  a  new  trial  and  an  arrest  of  judgment. 

The  points  made  by  the  defense  were :  First,  that  the  act  under  which  he  was  indicted  was 
unconstitutional,  per  se;  second,  that  the  evidence  offered  and  rejected  was  relevant  to  the 
question  of  its  constitutionality,  as  applied  to  the  special  facts  of  this  case. 

After  citing  numerous  precedents  showing  that  in  a  suit  to  declare  a  law  unconstitutional 
the  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  defendant,  and  that  the  Legislature  may  exercise  all  powers  that 
are  properly  legislative,  Judge  Simonton's  opinion  continues  : 

"  We  have  carefully  considered  the  suggestions  and  arguments  offered  by  his  (defendant's) 
able  counsel,  intended  to  show  that  the  power  to  enact  a  statute  such  as  the  one  in  question, 
which,  as  they  contend,  deprives  the  defendant  of  his  facilities  and  takes  from  him  his  means 
of  livelihood,  is  excepted  out  of  the  general  grant  of  the  legislative  power  contained  in  the  Con- 
stitution, by  the  express  or  implied  limitations  or  prohibitions  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  of  the  body 
of  the  Constitution  itself.  But,  assuming  for  the  present  that  the  statute  is  in  its  nature  legis- 
lative, we  are  wholly  unable  to  find  any  limitation  or  prohibition  which  can  be  successfully 
pleaded  against  its  enactment  or  enforcement.  P"or,  while  the  Bill  of  Rights  does  declare  that 


OLEOMARGARINE  ANI>  BUTTERINE.  45 

1  all  men  are  born  equally  free  and  independent,  and  have  certain  inherent  and  indefeasible 
rights,  among  which  are  those  of  enjoying  life  and  liberty,  and  of  acquiring,  possessing,  and 
protecting  property  and  reputation,  and  of  pursuing  their  own  happiness,'  this  has  never  been 
construed  to  be  a  declaration  that  these  rights  are  absolute.^  '  Hence,  if  the  act  in 

question  be  legislative  in  its  character,  the  limitations  which  it  prescribes  for  the  defendant  in 
the  acquisition,  possession,  and  use  of  his  property  are  clearly  within  the  boundary  lines  drawn 
by  the  Constitution,  if,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Legislature,  these  limitations  are  considered, 
necessary  and  expedient  for  the  welfare  of  the  community.  And  if  so,  then,  in  so  far  as  they 
do,  if  at  all,  interfere  with  the  defendant's  full  enjoyment  of  his  property,  this  interference  re- 
sults from  the  « law  of  the  land.'  " 

Speaking  of  the  decision  of  the  New  York  Court  of  Appeals  in  the  Jacobs  case,  in  which  a 
statute  prohibiting  the  making  of  cigars  in  tenement  houses  in  certain  cases  was  declared  un- 
constitutional on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  a  health  law,  Judge  Simonton  says: 

"  And  if  we  could  be  satisfied  that  the  object  and  intent  of  the  act  in  question  here  were 
what  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  New  York  declared  the  object  and  intent  of  the  act  before  that 
court  to  be,  we  would  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  it  unconstitutional  and  void.  But  having  in 
mind  the  axiom  that  all  the  presumptions  are  in  favor  of  the  good  faith  of  a  co-ordinate  depart- 
ment of  the  government,  and  that  to  doubt  is  to  be  resolved  in  favor  of  the  validity  of  its  acts, 
how  can  we  say  that  it  is  not  the  bona  fide  purpose  of  this  act,  as  expressed  in  its  title,  to  pro- 
tect the  public  health,  and  to  prevent  the  adulteration  of  dairy  products  and  fraud  in  their  sale? 
And  the  Legislature  having,  by  passing  the  act,  declared  its  judgment  that  the  means  used  are 
necessary  to  attain  these  ends,  we  cannot  review  this  judgment  when  exercised  in  good  faith,, 
for  the  conclusive  reason  that  it  is  clearly  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Legislature  to  effect 
these  purposes  by  appropriate  means." 

Here  the  opinion  quotes  numerous  precedents  bearing  upon  the  point,  deals  with  the  offer 
of  the  defendant  to  prove  by  expert  witnesses  the  cleanliness  and  wholesomeness  of  the  pVod- 
uct,  and  his  assertion  that  for  its  manufacture  large  investments  had  been  made,  this  evidence 
having  been  excluded,  says  :  "  But  we  are  unable  to  see  how  the  admission  of  this  testimony 
could  have  legally  changed  the  result.  With  respect  to  the  first  offer  we  are  by  no  means 
prepared  to  say,  even,  that  an  offer  to  show  that  oleomargarine  butter  or  butterine  is  made 
generally  from  pure  animal  fats  by  a  pure  and  wholesome  process,  and  is  as  wholesome  and 
nutritious  an  article  of  food  as  genuine  butter,  would  have  been  relevant.  But  this  we  are  not 
now  called  upon  to  decide.  The  offer  was  made  to  show  merely  that  the  article  admitted  to 
have  been  sold  in  this  case,  was  such.  No  one  doubts  that  it  might  be  made  as  stated  in  the 
offer.  But  it  is  no  less  certain  that  it  may  be  made  out  ef  oleaginous  substances  that  are  neither 
pure  nor  wholesome.  How,  then,  could  evidence  that  the  substance  sold  in  any  given  case, 
and  admitted  to  be  that  proscribed  by  the  act,  was  pure  and  wholesome,  tend  to  show  that  the 
statute  which  forbids  all  sales  is  unconstitutional?'  As  well  might  a  defendant  who  is  on  trial 
for  selling  spirituous  liquors  in  a  jurisdiction  where  all  such  sales  were  prohibited,  while 
admitting  that  he  had  sold  the  prohibited  article,  offer  to  prove,  by  way  of  defense,,  that  the 
particular  glass  of  liquor  sold  was  pure  and  wholesome.  Witnesses  could  be  called  in  almost 
every  case  who  would  be  willing  so  to  testify,  but  no  court  would  admit  such  testimony  for 
the  purpose  of  showing  that  a  prohibitive  statute  was  unconstitutional.  Indeed,  the  question 
of'the  constitutionality  of  a  statute  cannot  be  determined  on  the  testimony  of  witnesses,  for 
the  very  conclusive  reason  that  it  is  a  question  of  law  and  not  of  fact,  and  must  be  decided  by 
the  Court  on  quite  other  grounds  than  those  of  the  opinions  and  beliefs  of  witnesses.  We 
are  satisfied  that  it  was  not  an  error  to  refuse  the  testimony  recited  in  the  first  offer.  We  may 
here  remark  that  this  offer  brings  into  view  one  of  the  reasons  that  impelled  the  Legislature 
to  pass  this  act.  It  states  that  the  amount  of  butterine  in  the  manufactured  article  was  in- 
creased by  the  introduction  of  milk  and  cream,  and  that  the  only  effect  of  butterine  is  to  give 
flavor  to  the  butter.  Manifestly  the  purpose  was  to  give  this  article  as  nearly  as  possible 
the  flavor  and  semblance  of  butter,  so  that  it  might  be  sold  as  such  by  the  retailer  without  de- 
tection, and  no  doubt  this  is  the  '  fraud  in  the  sale '  which  the  act  was  designed  to  prevent." 

In  this  case  an  appeal  has  been  taken  to  the  highest  court  of  the  State,  and  the  prediction 
is  hazarded  that  that  court  will  follow  the  example  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  this  State  in. 
the  Cipperly  case,  and  base  its  decision  upon  Judge  Simonton's  learned  opinion. 

EDITORIAL  COMMENTS. 

(New    York  Star,  January  5,  1886.) 

The  campaign  against  the  bogus  butter  manufacturers  and  venders  is  now  pretty  certain  to> 
be  carried  into  the  Legislatures  of  several  States,  if  not  into  Congress  itself.  Our  representa- 
tives at  Washington  cannot  afford  to  overlook  the  great  interest  that  is  imperiled  by  this, 
traffic — that  of  the  dairymen  and  farmers  of  the  entire  country.  In  1883  our  exports  of  butter 
had  diminished  to  12,348, 640  pounds,  which  was  fully  5, 000,000  pounds  less  than  in  the  preced.- 


.46  OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE. 

ing  year.  These  figures  represent  a  total  aggregate  loss  of  16,786,680  pounds  in  five  years. 
In  1879  we  exported  over  25,000,000  pounds  and  last  year  (1885)  a  little  over  10,000,000 
pounds.  A  moment's  calculation  will  suffice  to  show  that  in  another  five  years  our  creamery 
export  trade  will  be  literally  wiped  out  by  bogus  butter.  The  phenomenal  growth  of  the 
oleomargarine  export  trade  is  seen  by  a  glance  at  the  following  figures  : 

Pounds,  Pounds. 


1880 20,000,000 

1881 26,300,000 

1882 22,000,000 


1883 23,400,000 

1884 39,322,841 

1885 37,882,155 


Here  is  an  increase  of  17,000,000  pounds  of  imitation  butter  sent  to  foreign  markets,  to 
offset  a  decrease  in  the  same  period  of  16,786,680  pounds  of  genuine  butter !  It  is  not  an  easy 
task  to  show  the  loss  to  the  foreign  trade  of  the  country  by  the  substitution  of  oleo ;  but  the 
most  reliable  estimates  place  it  at  $6,000,000  per  annum,  taking  1885  as  the  basis,  or  .a  little 
over  $25,000,000  since  1879,  inclusive.  This,  it  should  be  remembered,  is  altogether  apart 
from  the  home  question,  which  deals  with  the  loss  to  consumers  in  health  and  pocket  and  the 
flagrant  violation  of  law  by  the  wholesalers  and  retailers  of  bogus  butter. 

COMMISSIONER  COLMAN'S  WORK. 

W.  Y.  Star,  January  20,   1886. 

A  few  days  ago  we  made  reference  to  a  most  important  work  to  which  the  administration  is 
devoting  a  great  deal  of  thought  and  effort.  It  is  a  work  in  which  the  whole  people  are  con- 
cerned, for  it  touches  their  daily  lives  and  relates  to  their  closest  interests.  The  adulteration 
of  food  in  this  country  is  attaining  gigantic  proportions.  It  is  begining  to  affect  almost  every- 
thing we  eat  and  drink,  to  touch  the  sources  of  our  vitality,  to  taint  the  blood  of  our  children. 
It  menaces  that  dearest  possession  of  humanity,  health,  and  spreads  over  the  land  the  blight 
of  its  stealthy  and  terrible  influence. 

The  Department  of  Agriculture  has  taken  up  the  matter  in  earnest.  W^have  already  al- 
luded to  the  enthusiasm  with  which  Commissioner  Colman  is  combating  the  abuse,  and  have 
given  some  hints  as  to  the  methods  whereby  he  proposes  to  promote  the  end  he  has  in  view. 
He  has  enlisted  in  the  good  cause  the  official  chemists  of  the  different  States,  and  those  gentle- 
men are  now  engaged  in  the  preparation  of  reports  that  will  set  forth  not  only  all  the  various 
forms  of  food  adulteration  coming  within  their  respective  jurisdictions,  but  will,  in  addition, 
present  suggestions  as  to  the  most  practicable  way  of  arresting  the  evil.  Further  than  this, 
however,  and  possibly  still  more  important,  is  the  fact  that  Professor  Wylie,  the  chief  chemist 
of  the  department,  who  is  now  returning  from  a  business  mission  in  Europe,  will  bring  with 
him  full  information  as  to  the  methods  adopted  in  France,  Germany,  and  other  continental  na- 
tions, for  the  suppression  of  food  adulteration.  Those  nations,  France  especially,  have  had 
valuable  experience  in  the  direction  mentioned,  and,  it  is  believed,  have  attained  as  nearly  to 
perfect  efficiency  as  could  be  expected.  Professor  Wylie's  report  will  be  a  most  important 
contribution  to  the  work  in  which  Commissioner  Colman  is  engaged. 

It  is  not  possible  to  overrate  the  magnitude  of  this  enterprise.  The  people  at  large,  the' 
consumers,  are  being  made  the  victims  of  a  colossal,  organized  fraud.  Those  engaged  in  the 
legitimate  business  of  supply  are  being  oppressed  and  injured  by  dishonest  competitors.  The 
situation  is  deplorable  from  every  point  of  view,  and  it  should  be  a  matter  of  pride  to  all  Dem- 
ocrats that  the  administration  is  found  to  be  so  prompt  and  earnest  in  the  work  of  alleviating 
its  asperities.  We  are  at  the  mercy  or*  adulterated  milk,  butter,  cheese,  sugar,  molasses,  and 
a  hundred  other  articles  of  daily  consumption — not  excepting  infants'  food — and  from  this  ab- 
horrent predicament  the  administration  proposes  to  extricate  us.  We  believe  that  Commis- 
sioner Colman  will  be  able  to  formulate  a  bill  effectually  covering  the  whole  ground  and  point- 
ing out  a  way  by  which  food  adulteration  may  be  robbed  of  its  most  injurious  features,  if  not 
wholly  and  permanently  suppressed.  We  do  not  doubt  that  Congress  will,  in  the  interests  of 
the  public  welfare,  enact  the  law  almost  without  a  dissenting  voice. 


THE  BOGUS  BUTTER  BUSINESS. 

WHO   FAVOR   AND   WHO   OPPOSE   IT — A  STRONG  PRESENTATION  OF  THE  CASE. 

N.  Y.  Times,  January,  19,  1886. 

If  the  people  of  this  State  should  be  required  to  voio  upon  the  question  whether  or  not 
merchants  should  be  allowed  to  sell  bogus  butter  for  real  butter,  how  many  would  be  willing 
to  be  counted  on  the  affirmative  side  ?  If  they  should  be  required  to  express  by  vote  their 
opinion  as  to  the  propriety  of  forbidding  by  law  the  manufacture  of  bogus  butter,  how  many 
would  stand  up  and  be  counted  on  the  side  of  the  manufacturers  ?  We  cannot  assume  that  any 


OF  THE 
COLLEGE  OF 


OLEOMARGARINE  AND   BUTTERINE.  47 

one  in  this  State  would  deliberately  and  openly  favor  by  vote  such  deception  in  trade  as  is  used 
by  those  who  palm  off  upon  consumers  bogus  butter  for  real  butter.  Upon  the  second  ques- 
tion, as  to  preventing  manufacture  or  sale,  prohibition  would  be  favored  by  every  farmer  in 
the  State  and  by  every  consumer  not  personally  interested  in  the  bogus  butter  business.  That 
is  to  say,  there  would  be  arrayed  in  opposition  to  5,000,000  of  people  a  few  scores  of  persons 
who  are  engaged  in  making  bogus  butter  or  in  selling  it,  or  who  depend  in  some  way,  directly 
•or  indirectly,  on  this  "industry"  for  support.  The  people  do  not  want  the  stuff,  and  they  will 
not  use  it  if  they  can  help  it.  Nevertheless,  it  is  made  in  this  city  and  in  other  parts  of  the 
State  in  enormous  quantities,  and  thousands  of  packages  imported  from  other  States  are  sold 
here  every  month. 

To  the  consumer  it  comes  as  real  butter.  The  manufacturer  and  the  wholesale  dealer  sell 
it  for  what  it  is,  of  course,  and  the  retail  dealer  may  occasionally  sell  it  for  what  it  is  to  the 
proprietor  of  a  boarding  house  or  a  restaurant,  but  to  those  who  eat  it  the  stuff  is  presented  as 
real  butter,  for  the  excellent  reason  that  if  it  were  presented  as  anything  else  they  would  not  use 
it.  Yet  there  are  newspapers  that  talk  about  "  denying  the  people  the  right  to  use  a  food  pro- 
duct of  their  own  choice  !"  The  annual  report  of  Dairy  Commissioner  Brown  should  be  read 
with  satisfaction  by  the  people  of  New  York,  because  it  shows  that  he  has  made  commendable 
progress  in  the  work  of  enforcing  the  laws  against  those  who  swindle  consumers  by  selling 
them  bogus  butter  for  the  real  product  of  the  dairy.  After  the  Court  of  Appeals  had  declared 
the  law  prohibiting  manufacture  and  sale  to  be  unconstitutional  dealers  boldly  defied  all  other 
laws  relating  to  this  subject.  The  commissioner  has  reminded  them  of  the  existence  of  these 
laws,  and  the  cases  of  nearly  200  persons  who  have  been  prosecuted  are  pending  in  the  courts. 
Fines  to  the  amount  of  nearly  $2,300  have  been  collected.  We  hope  that  in  the  current  year 
the  commissioner  will  be  able,  by  vigorous  prosecution,  to  put  an  end  to  the  sale  of  bogus 
butter  by  deception  and  fraud. 

Those  who  have  been  retained  to  defend  the  manufacturers  of  the  several  compounds  that 
masquerade  in  the  form  and  semblance  of  butter  declare  that  the  stuff  is  wholesome.  They  do 
not  go  so  far  as  to  defend  the  deception,  without  which  the  product  of  the  factories  could  not 
be  sold,  but  their  plea  is  that  the  stuff  will  harm  no  one  who  is  led  by  deception  to  eat  it.  The 
commissioner  submits  a  special  report,  made  by  Dr.  Clark,  who  has  been  at  work  for  nearly  a 
year  as  an  expert  in  this  field.  His  conclusion  is  that  for  several  reasons  bogus  butter  is  un- 
wholesome and  dangerous  to  health.  Manufacturers  who  are  eager  to  make  a  cheap  product 
use  unwholesome  fats  and  ingredients  that  cannot  fail  to  injure  the  consumer.  Dr.  Clark's 
list  of  acids,  oils,  and  other  substances  used  by  the  manufacturers  can  be  greatly  prolonged  by 
adding  the  names  of  substances  specified  in  the  patents  issued  for  the  various  processes.  It  is 
possible  that  in  some  place  there  is  made  bogus  butter  that  will  not  harm  the  person  who  eats 
it.  But  in  most  cases  the  manufacturer's  aim  is  to  produce  an  article  that  will  look  well  and 
sell  for  a  price  that  will  hold  the  market  for  him  against  competitors.  The  fraudulent  com- 
pounds are  manufactured  under  no  restrictions  except  those  imposed  by  the  maker's  conscience 
and  the  demands  of  the  trade.  Under  these  conditions  what  must  be  the  nature  of  the  product  ? 

There  is  no  room  for  argument  upon  the  proposition  that  bogus  butter  should  be  sold  for 
just  what  it  is  and  not  for  a  dairy  product.  A  rigid  enforcement  of  the  laws  forbidding  any 
other  disposition  of  the  stuff  is  demanded  in  the  interests  of  public  health,  our  export  trade  in 
dairy  products  and  our  dairy  industry,  and  for  the  support  of  honesty  in  trade.  Those  who  try 
to  thwart  the  execution  of  these  laws  are  the  enemies  of  the  people. 

AN  ABSURD  STATEMENT. 

A\  Y.  Times,  Jan.  28,  1886. 

A  few  days  ago  the  Court  of  Appeals  reversed  the  decision  of  the  General  Term  of  the 
Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  the  People  against  Arthur  Cipperly,  thereby  declaring  the 
law  forbidding  the  sale  of  adulterated  or  unwholesome  milk  to  be  constitutional.  The  judgment 
of  the  court  below  was  overturned,  the  Court  of  Appeals  said,  "for  reasons  sufficiently  stated 
by  Judge  Learned,"  who  had  submitted  a  dissenting  opinion.  In  this  opinion,  thus  indorsed 
by  the  Court  of  Appeals,  Judge  Learned  was  led  to  speak  of  the  upper  court  in  the  Marx 
case,  which  declared  the  law  forbidding  the  manufacture  or  sale  of  imitation  butter  to  be  un- 
constitutional. 

"The  object  of  that  law,  like  that  of  a  protective  tariff,"  wrote  Judge  Learned,  "was  to 
protect  the  home  industry  of  the  farmer  against  the  city  industry  of  the  manufacturer,  and  the 
court  held  the  law  to  be  void  because  it  prohibits  an  important  branch  of  industry  for  the  sole 
reason  that  it  competes  with  another,  and  may  reduce  *he  price  of  an  article  of  food."  On  the 
other  hand,  he  declared  that  the  milk  law's  "sole  object"  was  to  "regulate  and  control  the 
quality  of  a  certain  article  of  food  in  the  interest  of  the  health  of  the  people." 

It  is  not  true  that  the  object  of  the  prohibitory  law  against  imitation  butter  was  "  to  pro- 
tect the  home  industry  of  the  farmer  against  the  city  industry  of  the  manufacturer,"  and  a 


48  OLEOMARGARINE  AND   BUTTERINE. 

thousand  assertions  by  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  indorsed  by  the  Court  of  Appeals,  can- 
not make  it  true.  The  imitation  butter  law  which  the  court  has  rejected  was,  like  other  laws 
CK  the  same  subject  that  are  still  in  force,  enacted  for  the  protection  of  the  consumer.  Legis- 
lation against  imitation  butter  has  been  demanded  for  the  protection  of  the  people.  It  is  true 
that  the  dairy  interests  have  suffered,  and  still  suffer,  by  reason  of  the  manufacture  and  sale- 
of  the  imitation,  and  that  the  laws  have  been  supported  by  the  farmers,  but  primarily  they 
were  enacted  for  the  benefit  of  the  people  who  eat  butter,  to  prevent  them  from  being  deceived 
and  from  bein°-  fed  with  an  unwholesome  product. 

The  farmers  who  make  butter  may  reasonably  help  the  consumer  in  his  contest  with  the 
bogus  butter  men,  for  the  quantity  of  butter  exported  has  fallen  from  nearly  40,000,000  pounds 
in  1880  to  only  21,683,000  pounds  in  1885,  while  the  quantity  of  imitation  butter  and  oleo  oil 
exported  has  risen  to  37,882,000  pounds.  The  consumer  in  the  city  or  in  the  country,  has  a 
right  to  demand  that  he  shall  not  be  deceived  by  those  who  sell  him  food,  and  that  stuff  that 
will  undermine  his  health  shall  not  be  palmed  off  upon  him  as  a  genuine  product  of  the  dairy. 
The  trade  in  bogus  butter  thrives  on  deceit  and  lives  by  deceit  alone,  and  no  amount  of  talk 
from  judges  or  paid  attorneys  about  competition  and  the  trade's  "importance  as  an  industry  " 
can  convince  intelligent  people  that  it  is  opposed  by  no  one  except  the  makers  of  real  butter. 

A  MERCHANT  ON  BOGUS  BUTTER. 

N.  Y.  Star,  Jan.  26,  1886. 

From  mercantile  circles  on  every  side,  no  less  than  from  private  consumers,  The  Star 
continues  to  receive  emphatic  indorsements  of  the  crusade  it  has  opened  up  in  the  interest  of 
pure  and  healthful  food  products  and  against  adulteration.  One  of  the  best-known  commission 
merchants  in  New  York,  who  has  been  for  many  years  prominently  identified  with  the  butter 
trade,  writes  us  as  follows : 

NEW  YORK,  Jan.  20. 

To  THE  EDITOR  OF  THE  STAR — SIR  :  Your  editorial  in  this  morning's  issue  on  Com- 
missioner Colman's  work  is  an  excellent  one.  Too  much  stress  cannot  be  placed  upon  your 
own  words.  They  are  as  follows:  "The  people  at  large — the  consumers —are  being  made 
victims  of  a  colossal  organized  fraud.  Those  engaged  in  the  legitimate  business  of  supply  are 
being  oppressed  and  injured  by  dishonest  competitors.  The  situation  is  deplorable  from  every 
point  of  view." 

The  Democratic  party  could  do  nothing  better  for  the  country  than  to  wipe  out  this  gigantic 
fraud.  Pure  food  products  can  be  produced  far  in  excess  of  home  consumption.  There  is  no 
excuse  in  the  world  for  feeding  our  people  so  much  contemptible  trash.  It  is  destroying  the 
confidence  of  foreign  nations  in  the  purity  of  our  food  products  and  our  integrity  as  merchants. 

I  hope  The  S tar  will  continue  to  agitate  the  question,  that  our  law-makers  in  this  country- 
may  see  the  necessity  of  stringent  means  regulating  the  sale  of  adulterated  products. 

Very  respectfully,  JAMES  H.  SEYMOUR. 

Mr.  Seymour's  is  not  an  isolated  case  of  opposition  to  the  vicious  and  unwholesome  traffic 
in  counterfeit  butter.  Mr.  F.  B.  Thurber,  the  largest  wholesale  produce  merchant  in  the  East, 
several  weeks  ago  wrote  to  The  Starihat  his  firm  had  refused  to  sell  oleomargarine,  or  butter 
substitutes,  being  unwilling  to  share  in  the  odium  attached  to  the  traffic.  This  was  followed 
by  the  combined  action  of  the  retail  Grocers'  Union,  which  decided  to  sell  no  more  counterfeit 
butter,  and  even  urged  the  Legislature  to  pass  a  law  compelling  dealers  in  the  stuff  to  color  it 
blue  or  pink.  Since  that  time  the  war  has  extended  into  a  dozen  States.  Reputable  dealers 
everywhere  are  falling  into  line ;  they  cannot  afford  to  withstand  the  overwhelming  tide  of  pub  • 
lie  condemnation  that  has  set  in  against  adulterated  butter  in  every  shape.  People  have  had 
their  eyes  opened  to  the  real  character  of  the  deceptive  compounds  they  have  been  consuming 
for  several  years  past  under  the  pleasant  delusion  that  it  was  the  genuine  creamery  product 
they  saw  shining  in  yellow,  tempting  rolls  on  their  breakfast  and  dinner  tables.  They  refuse 
longer  to  be  poisoned  by  slow  degrees,  in  order  that  the  manufacturers  of  bogus  butter  may 
become  rapidly  rich  on  their  snug  profit  of  four  or  five  hundred  per  cent.  Congress  has  the 
whole  subject  of  butter  adulteration  before  it,  and  the  State  legislatures  are  preparing  to  do 
their  share  of  the  task  of  conserving  the  general  health  and  stopping  the  raid  on  the  public's 
pocket.  All  the  signs  point  to  the  conclusion  that  bogus  butter,  as  a  salable  article  of  food, 
must  go. 

We  commend  to  the  members  of  our  State  Legislature  the  views  of  such  gentlemen  as 
Messrs.  Seymour  and^Thurber,  which  ought  to  possess  considerable  weight  in  this  connection. 
The  people  expect  that  the  Legislature  will  do  its  whole  duty  in  the  premises  and  adopt  such 
a  measure  as  will  protect  equally  the  legitimate  producer  of  honest  butter  and  the  general  con- 
sumer from  further  imposition  by  the  manufacturers  and  retailers  of  poisonous  imitations. 


OLEOMARGARINE   AND    BUTTERINE.  49 


APPENDIX. 

COMMISSIONER    BROWN'S    REPLY   TO   THE    SENATE. 


On  the  9th  of  March,  1886,  the  Senate  of  the  State  of  New  York  adopted  a  resolution 
requesting  the  Sta'e  Dairy  Commissioner  to  furnish  certain  information  relative  to  the  work 
of  his  department.  The  first  of  the  questions  propounded  was  as  to  the  number  of  prosecu- 
tions since  May  I,  1885,  for  violations  of  the  dairy  laws  ;  second,  the  number  of  complaints 
made  against  different  citizens  of  the  State  in  regard  to  which  actions  have  not  been  begun ; 
third,  the  names  and  residences  of  the  assistants,  attorneys,  experts,  chemists,  etc.,  employed 
by  the  department;  and  fourth,  asking  special  information  withf  regard  to  the  case  against 
Daniel  Kerin,  in  which  an  adverse  decision  was  rendered. 

In  his  reply,  which  was  presented  to  the  Senate  on  March  18,  Commissioner  Brown  said  r 

"  Early  in  the  first  year  of  my  administration  of  the  affairs  of  this  department,  I  found  that 
the  time  of  district  attorneys  of  New  York  and  Kings  Counties  was  so  fully  occupied  in  the 
prosecution  and  enforcement  of  the  criminal  laws  in  their  respective  counties  that  it  was  impos- 
sible for  them  to  give  that  attention  to  the  attempt  to  enforce  the  statutes  with  reference  to 
imitation,  impure  and  adulterated  dairy  products,  which  in  my  judgment  was  necessary  to- 
secure  the  arrest,  trial,  and  conviction  of  those  who  have  been  guilty  of  violating  the  provisions 
of  those  statutes. 

"I  therefore  employed  attorneys  to  assist  in  this  work  who  were  acceptable  to,  and  could 
therefore  work  in  complete  harmony  with,  the  district  attorneys.  This  subject  is  referred  to 
on  page  6  of  my  first  annual  report  to  the  Legislature.  Section  19  of  Chapter  183  of  the  Laws 
of  1885  prescribes  penalties  for  violations  of  the  statute  in  addition  to  fines  which  may  be 
imposed  by  the  criminal  courts. 

"  I  was  advised  by  the  district  attorneys  of  two  dairy  counties  to  bring  suits  for  those 
penalties,  and  believing  that  violations  of  our  law  could  be  more  certainly  prevented  and 
offenders  more  surely  punished,  I  determined  to  have  suits  commenced  and  prosecuted  for 
the  penalties  prescribed.  I  referred  the  whole  matter  of  these  proposed  prosecutions  and  of 
the  employment  of  attorneys  to  my  general  counsel,  Messrs.  Risley,  Quin  &  Perry,  whose, 
opinion  upon  the  subject  is  hereto  annexed. 

"  This  opinion,  holding  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Dairy  Commissioner  to  employ  counsel! 
in  all  prosecutions,  and  that  it  was  not  the  duty  of  the  Attorney- General  to  do  this  work,  was. 
submitted  to  that  officer,  Hon.  Denis  O'Brien,  and  he  concurred  in  the  conclusions  to  whichv 
my  counsel  arrived  in  the  opinion  hereto  annexed. 

•'  During  the  previous  year  proceedings  had  been  instituted  and  conducted  by  different 
attorneys  in  several  different  counties,  which  involved  so  much  care  and  attention  to  keep 
track  of  and  direct  the  litigation  that  I  decided  to  have  all  actions  for  penalties  brought  by 
some  one  attorney  or  firm,  in  order  that  at  any  time  I  could  easily  possess  myself  of  all  the 
facts  relating  to  this  branch  of  the  service  throughout  the  State. 

"  It  was  my  purpose,  as  soon  as  the  pleadings  were  served  and  a  case  ready  for  trial,  to 
send  the  papers  to  some  competent  attorney  in  the  county  where  the  venue  was  laid,  which  in 
all  cases  must  be  the  county  in  which  the  defendant  resided,  that  causes  might  be  actually 
tried  by  local  counsel  on  fair  terms  to  be  agreed  upon." 


50  OLEOMARGARINE  AND   BUTTERINE. 

Appended  to  the  report  was  the  opinion  of  Risley,  Quin  &  Perry,  to  the  effect  that  the 
Dairy  Commissioner  was  authorized  to  employ  such  counsel  as  he  deemed  necessary,  and 
that  he  was  not  justified  in  casting  the  burden  of  this  special  litigation  upon  the  Attorney- 
General. 

In  conclusion,  Commissioner  Brown  says  : 

"  From  these  statements  it  appears  that  there  have  been  two  hundred  and  sixty-three 
actual  criminal  prosecutions  instituted  and  fifty  civil  suits  brought  for  penalties  for  violations 
of  the  statute  with  the  enforcement  of  which  I  am  charged. 

"A  penalty  of  $100  has  been  paid  without  suit  in  sixteen  different  cases.  In  this  con- 
nection it  should  be  stated  that  evidence  of  violations  of  the  statutes  mentioned  has  been 
obtained  in  something  over  two  hundred  different  cases,  principally  for  violations  of  the  milk 
sections  of  the  statute,  upon  which,  as  yet,  no  complaints  have  been  made  or  proceedings 
actually  commenced. 

"  Under  Section  19  of  Chapter  183,  Laws  of  1885,  civil  suits  may  be  brought  by  the 
Dairy  Commissioner  to  recover  penalties  therein  fixed  in  addition  to  the  fines  to  be  imposed 
in  criminal  proceedings  against  offenders,  not  less  than  five  hundred  such  suits  might  have 
been  brought  within  the  tWelve  months  last  past ;  but  it  was  deemed  unwise  and  unsafe  to 
plunge  the  State  into  such  enormous  litigation  until  the  courts  has  passed  upon  some  of  the 
cases  now  pending.  If  the  Dairy  Commissioner  is  in  duty  bound  to  bring  suits  for  penalties 
in  all  those  cases,  it  will  be  seen  that  his  time  must  of  necessity  be  pretty  fully  occupied.  If 
suits  for  these  penalties  are  only  to  be  brought,  in  such  cases  as  the  Commissioner  shall  deem 
proper,  that  officer  will  often  be  charged  with  favoritism  and  injustice  however  faithfully  and 
wisely  he  may  discharge  his  official  duty  in  the  matter.  Whether  the  statute  can  be  amended 
so  as  to  relieve  the  Commissioner  from  such  a  serious  responsibility  and  protect  the  State 
against  the  unwise  use  of  such  unlimited  discretion  or  power  without  taking  from  the  Com- 
missioner the  authority  which  he  needs  in  order  to  vigorously  enforce  the  laws,  is  a  question 
for  the  Legislature  in  its  wisdom  to  determine. 

"In  the  foregoing  statement  made  by  Assistant  Commissioner  Van  Valkenburgh,  it 
appears  that,  in  several  instances,  cases  made  against  manufacturers  and  wholesale  dealers  in 
imitation  butter  were  presented  to  the  grand  jury,  and  indictments  were  refused.  I  am 
informed  that  such  refusal  was  placed  upon  the  ground  that  those  parties  made  and  sold  the 
article  for  what  it  really  was  and  not  for  genuine  dairy  butter. 

"Civil  suits  have  been  brought  against  several  of  these  persons,  but  the  cases  not  being 
of  the  class  of  preferred  causes,  they  have  not  yet  been  reached,  although  we  hope  to  bring 
them  to  trial  very  soon.  Large  numbers  of  retail  dealers  were  continually  selling  imitation 
butter  to  the  people  for  the  genuine,  and  I  have  proceeded  with  all  the  vigor  and  force  practi- 
cable to  cause  the  arrest  and  punishment  of  all  this  class  of  offenders,  and  at  the  same  time 
pushing  forward  as  rapidly  as  possible  the  cases  against  manufacturers  and  wholesalers. 

"  It  is  further  shown  in  the  foregoing  documents  and  statements  that  the  sum  of  $53,403.80 
have  been  expended  up  to  March  I,  1886.  To  this  sum  must  be  added,  to  show  the  entire 
sum  expended  and  incurred,  and  which  is  not  called  for  by  the  resolution  nor  stated  herein, 
the  salary  and  expenses  of  the  Commissioner,  the  traveling  and  other  expenses  of  the  assistant 
commissioners,  agents,  experts,  etc.,  in  the  performance  of  their  official  duties,  amounts  paid 
for  suspected  samples  purchased,  for  chemicals,  apparatus,  etc.,  necessarily  purchased,  for 
postage,  printing  and  other  necessary  incidental  expenses,  as  audited  and  allowed  by  the 
Comptroller,  which  will  increase  the  sum  above  stated  by  several  thousand  dollars. 

"  For  the  further  information  of  the  Senate,  I  have  annexed  the  retocopies  of  the  opinion 
of  the  court  in  the  case  of  The  People  vs.  Daniel  Kerin,  and  also  in  the  case  of  The  People  vs. 
Benjamin  J,  Hill,  both  of  which  were  decided  at  the  General  Term  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
First  Department,  January,  1886." 


OLEOMARGARINE   AND   BUTTERINE.  51 

With  regard  to  the  adverse  decision  in  the  Kerin  case,  the  opinion  cf  Messrs.  Risley, 
'Quin  &  Perry  says  : 

"  The  submission  in  the  Kerin  case  was,  as  we  have  stated,  under  the  advice  of  one  of  our 
firm.  The  Commissioner  did  not  know  of  it  at  the  time  of  its  submission.  The  case  was 
•finally  submitted  by  the  district  attorney  in  accordance  with  our  suggestion.  After  the  agree- 
ment for  the  submission  had  been  made  and  the  case  submitted,  the  Cipperly  decision  was 
made  by  the  Court  of  Appeals,  which  apparently  held  the  precise  point  involved  in  this  case, 
as  we  understand  its  effect.  The  indictment  against  Arensburgh,  involving  the  constitution- 
ality of  Section  7,  was  tried  on  January  6,  1886,  and  a  conviction  obtained  against  him  for 
selling  oleomargarine.  The  judge  before  whom  it  was  tried,  and  the  assistant  district  attor- 
ney who  tried  the  case,  took  a  little  different  view  of  the  construction  of  Section  7  from  that 
which  we  have  argued.  No  question  was  raised,  however,  by  the  defendant's  counsel  in  that 
Tespect.  The  case  has  been  submitted  on  appeal  to  the  General  Term  of  the  Second  Depart- 
ment. An  early  and  favorable  decision  is  anticipated." 


COMMISSION    MERCHANTS'    PROTEST. 

THEY  EXPRESS  THEIR   OPPOSITION  TO   ANY   REDUCTION   OF  THE  APPROPRIATION 
FOR  THE   DAIRY   DEPARTMENT. 

In  March  last  the  leading  butter  merchants  sent  the  following  communication  to  members 
of  the  Legislature.  It  explains  itself : 

We,  the  undersigned  dealers  of  Dairy  Products  of  .this  city,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Finance  having  reported  in  favor  of  reducing  the  Assembly  Appropri- 
ation for  the  Dairy  Commission  of  $75,000  to  $50,000,  which  in  our  judgment  is  a  serious 
mistake,  as  it  is  within  our  knowledge  that  the  Dairy  Commission  have  used  every  effort 
within  their  power  to  enforce  the  Oleomargarine  law,  and  have  accomplished  a  great  deal  in 
protecting  the  consumer  against  being  defrauded. 

It  is  a  question  beyond  dispute  that  the  enforcement  of  the  law  has  saved  to  the  Dairy 
interest  of  this  State  not  less  than  one  and  a  half  millions  of  dollars  during  the  past  six 
months.  In  our  opinion,  the  experience  obtained  by  the  Commission  how  to  deal  with  this 
gigantic  fraud  is  of  incalculable  value.  Any  change  whatever  in  the  law  or  execution  of  the 
same  would  be  detrimental  to  the  Dairy  interest  and  to  the  consumer  of  the  Dairy  product. 
We  are  aware  of  the  obstructions  the  Commission  have  had  to  contend  with  in  the  courts, 
and  especially  in  dealing  with  the  manufacturers,  the  courts  having  shown  a  disposition  to 
await  the  decision  of  the  General  Term  before  proceeding  with  any  more  trials  of  cases. '  The 
bogus  butter  interest  is  watching  our  action  closely,  and  any  move  on  the  part  of  the  Legislature 
to  disturb  the  Dairy  Commission  in  any  way  whatever  would  be  exceedingly  gratifying  to 
them.  The  Dairy  interest  and  the  consumers  will  hold  you  responsible. 

We  earnestly  request  that  the  appropriation  be  made  $75,000  and  the  Commission  be 
not  disturbed. 

Signed, 
MACKENZIE,  CHASE  &  Co.,  92  Warren  St.       i    F.  C.  BARGER  &  Co.,  82  Warren  St. 


EGBERT  &  CASE,  80  Warren  St.. 
McBRiDE  &  Co.,  74  Warren  St. 
JNO.  S.  MARTIN  &  Co.,  168  Chambers  St. 
HUNTER,  WALTON  &  Co.,  168  Chambers  St. 


CHAS.  S.  BROWN  &  Co.,  84  Warren  St. 
CHAS.  H.  ZINN  &  Co.,  94  Warren  St. 
W.  H.  DUCKWORTH,  319  Washington  St. 
HENRY  HANSON  &  Co.,  90  Warren  St. 


OLEOMARGARINE  AND   BUTTERINE, 


FOLSOM  &  BENNETT,  70  Warren  St. 

JOHN  A.  SMITH  &  BRO.,  279  Washington  St. 

LLOYD  I.  SEAMAN  &  Co.,  313  Washington  St. 

B.  F.  TUTHILL  &  Co.,  191  Duane  St. 

JAS.  H.  FANCHER,  69  &  71  Clinton  Market. 
TRELEASE  &  UNDERHILL,  22  Jay  St. 
JOHN  H.  MEYER,  323  Washington  St. 
L.  F.  DODD,  325  Washington  St. 
QUICK  &  REED,  327  Washington  St. 
LUTZ  &  OETJEN,  331  Washington  St. 
W.  F.  REDLICH,  332  Washington  St. 
A.  M.  COLLIGNON,  330  Washington  St. 

C.  F.  GLIMM,  322  &  324  Washington  St. 
W.  P.  WILDER  &  Co.,  312  Washington  St. 
NELSON  SECOR,  189  Duane  St. 

G.  D.  AHRLING  &  Co.,  193  Duane  St. 
H.  HENNEBERGER,  317  Washington  St. 
HARRY  DOWIE,  JR.,  316  Washington  St. 
W.  H.  B.  TOTTEN,  291  Washington  St. 
I.  H.  MACBRIDE,  304  Greenwich  St. 
JAMES  H.  SEYMOUR  &  Co.,  159  Chambers  St. 
VAN  VALKENBURGH  &  RONK,  350  Washing- 
ton St. 


JOHN  A.  WILLETT  &  Co.,  137  Reade  St. 
BROWN  &  RITTENHOUSE,  139  Reade  St. 
L.  B.  MILLER  &  SON,  145  Reade  St. 
JOHN  K.  LASHER  &  BRO.,  147  Reade  St. 
WM.    B.  A.   JURGENS,  179  Boerum   Street,. 

Brooklyn. 

W.  I.  YOUNG  &  Co.,  149  Reade  St. 
S.  C.  BRUSH,  149  Reade  St. 
CHAS.  M.  HOWE,  149  Reade  St. 
M.  J.  GRAHAM,  151  Reade  St. 
C.  E.  BLISS,  153  Reade  St. 
FISHER  &  RITTENHOUSE,  154  Reade  St. 
GERKEN  &  BURMEISTER,  154  Reade  St. 
G.  W.  DEMAREST'S  SONS,  148  Reade  St. 
JOHN  KOSTER,  SON  &  Co.,  146  Reade  St. 
WM.  H.  LUDLUM,  144  Reade  St. 
NICHOLS  BROTHERS,  142  Reade  St. 
TARBOX  &  CRANDALL,  140  Reade  St. 
A.  J.  D.  WEDEMEYER  &  Co.  394  Greenwich 

Street. 

ENYARD  &  BAIN,  188  Chambers  St. 
SEYMOUR  &  NOE,  176  Chambers  St. 
JOHN  GUTH,  162  Chambers  St. 


BHS 


TO 

LOANTERiOD  1 


YC  20727 


IVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


